Pro: Veronique de Rugy & Don Boudreaux: NAFTA At 25: Landmark Free-Trade Deal Should Be Celebrated
Con: James M. Sheehan: Two Years After NAFTA: A Free Market Critique & Assessment
I find it interesting that libertarians can arrive at different answers to this question even within a strictly utilitarian consequentialist (rather than deontological) framework.

I got diagnosed with gastroparesis in 2010. I had a lot going on back then and was able to get it all under control to the point that I just sometimes take over the counter meds if I have symptoms and just control things with diet. Some days are harder than others, but I manage fairly well.
The thing is, they could never give me an answer as to why I had gastroparesis. There was no source. I’m not a diabetic and I didn’t have any sort of surgery or co-morbid disease that caused it. In fact, gastroparesis along with a hiatal hernia, GERD, and H. Pylori was deemed cause of my S.M.A. Syndrome back then. They just didn’t know what caused it and every new doctor I’ve been to (due to insurance changes, etc.) since then thinks they’re going to make some huge discovery and always send for a bunch of tests. They’re convinced I’m diabetic, have some thyroid issue, or celiac. Everything always comes back negative. And then they’re still shocked I still have it after so many years because it should have gone away already—or at least that’s what they say. Some doctors told me it might be hereditary somehow. But no one in my family has gastroparesis or any symptoms like it.
At the urging of my husband, I started going to doctors to get blood tests to keep tabs on my nourishment and established my first primary care doc in years, who also happens to be his doctor. My doctor took the time and interest to listen to my full medical history and investigate what might be wrong. He was the first doctor to figure out I might have a genetic disorder based on my health history.
I swear seeing a doctor make a mind map of all my conditions was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen but also the most humanizing treatment I’ve felt at a doctor’s office. I felt seen and heard. Tell me why it took so long to find a doctor who would put in the effort to connect the dots…
After he sent me off to multiple specialists, I officially got diagnosed with a connective tissue disorder (along with other things due to that 😭).
After doing a lot of research on my own and discussing it with my doctor, there’s a big likelihood it’s Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) but they refuse to diagnose me with that until I have a bigger medical emergency. EDS is just one of many connective tissue disorders. They told me the care is still the same since it’s all in the same umbrella (they’re taking care of my heart now, too). It’s likely that they don’t want to give me the specific diagnosis so I don’t lose insurance. But that’s neither here nor there.
The reason I bring it up is because while doing some research on my new condition I learned other people with connective tissue disorders including EDS have gastroparesis, hernias, tilted uteruses, etc. I have all of that.
I am 34 years old and I am finally learning why I have all the issues I’ve had since I was a small child. Everything is apparently connected to this diagnosis. It sucks but it’s an answer.
I hope this encourages someone to not give up and continue to seek answers to their medical issues.
TL;DR: I got diagnosed with a connective tissue disorder this year and gastroparesis is a common condition for people with it. I no longer have an idiopathic gastroparesis diagnosis.

Does anyone else remember this? Back in 2010 (maybe 2011?), I was watching some random YouTube videos with a couple friends. One of them was “Evolution of Dance.” At the time it was the most viewed video on the platform. In the comments, one of the posts said in all caps “THIS IS DRAKE CALL ME [phone number]” or something similar to that.
There was a lot of “you call it,” “no, you call.” I guess we were nervous or thought it might be a scam, but I ended up calling the number. It was literally Drake that answered the phone.
It was a very awkward phone call. I said “who is this?” He said “who do you think it is?” All I could say was “uh… Draaake?” After that I just stared at my friends, and we were all shrugging like we didn’t know what to do or say. There was a long period of silence and he said something along the lines of “alright well I gotta get back to work.”
Fucking bizarre interaction. I was in high school at the time, and didn’t really know what to do in the situation 😂.
But I only bring this up because it seems kind of weird that he was giving out his number publicly to random strangers. Especially when YouTube at the time was mostly a youth centric platform (think of how TikTok is today). How far back does his creepy behavior go? Looking back on it now, I wonder if he was looking for younger fans to connect with. 👀
Did anyone else remember seeing a comment like that linked to Drake? I tried going back and looking through the comments, but idk how to search through them all. And maybe it was some kind of promotional thing where the number was posted for a short time and deleted? I doubt it was his personal number. It was probably a burner number for some kind of early viral promotional stunt or something. But the Kendrick/Drake beef got me thinking about this again.

In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift.
Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted.
However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable.
Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital.
Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics.

Tech monopolies slow down innovation

In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation.
Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants?
In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks.
A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy.
This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres.
The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions.
The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years.
Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans.
Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was.

Cardwell’s law

The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered.
Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses.
Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers.
These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech.
Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent.
Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward.
This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive.
This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of.
Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities.

Decentralization and open innovation

In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives.
The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’.
In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035.
In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads.
The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound.
The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor.
Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects.
Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed.
Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities.
Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics.
Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform.
Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation.
Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem.
Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants.
The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits.
Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies.
However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted.
As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms.

Conclusion

In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives.
As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist.
A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge.
For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs.
However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement.
The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift. Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted. However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable. Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital. Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics. Tech monopolies slow down innovation In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation. Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants? In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks. A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy. This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres. The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions. The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years. Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans. Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was. Cardwell’s law The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered. Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses. Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers. These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech. Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent. Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward. This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive. This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of. Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities. Decentralization and open innovation In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives. The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’. In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035. In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads. The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound. The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor. Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects. Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed. Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities. Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics. Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform. Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation. Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem. Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants. The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits. Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies. However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted. As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms. Conclusion In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives. As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist. A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge. For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs. However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement. The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.

Platforms: PC
Genre: Adventure?
Estimated year of release: 2000-2010
Graphics/art style: 2d
Notable characters: Brown haired woman archaeologist
Notable gameplay mechanics: Mouse interaction only. No wasd or keyboard used
Other details: A 2d game set in modern Egypt. I remember it always being sunny. You play as an archaelogist in an excavation site. I think you distribute tasks and choose where to dig. There are moments of dialogue between characters which you can click through to read because I vaguely remember another dude archaelogist there who I conversed with often. It's not Nancy Drew. This is kind of a long shot since I don't remember much but it's been driving me crazy lately and I've been looking for it on my own in vain. Any answer, however vague, is appreciated.

Its not just dell and im far from the first to complain about this— but why? Seriously, why? Smart people — at least some — have had to be involved. My old 2010 xps 15 had a much more comfy front edge (and i know it was overall bulky, but still). Appearance is the obvious answer but what else would lead a laptop designer to create discomfort for palms (and yes i realize it depends on the angle of your arms, but still)? Would a slight curvy bevel make manufacturing more expensive bc = less straight lines? And maybe not enough people care enough to not buy? And maybe they think a more perfect wedge is easier to slip into bags? And maybe the head of Ergonomics isn’t as charming or attractive as the brand manageart director? What other laptop brands focus more on practical tactile ergonomic experience?? Design attractiveness is really important… for like five days… and then we’re living w thing. And yeah, I know by that point they have your money yada yada, but still. Its gotta be more than that. They want people to enjoy their product.

am so close to passing my Econ stat class but I cannot for the life of me get the answers to these questions. I have passed every test since but I am really struggling and I would appreciate any help I could get.
Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1970 and ending with 2005. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate b0.

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1960 and ending with Q4 of 1990. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate R squared.

10 points

QUESTION 3

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1980 and ending with Q4 of 2010. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate b1.

10 points

QUESTION 4

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1970 and ending with 2005. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Is the residual plot consistent with the assumptions of OLS? Write 1 if yes and 0 if no.

10 points

QUESTION 5

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1965 and ending with 1995. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Using your regression results, what is the predicted (estimated) change in the unemployment rate given a 1 unit increase in the GDP?

10 points

QUESTION 6

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1960 and ending with 2000. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Using a significance level of 5%, is there a statistically significant relationship between GDP and unemployment rate? Write 1 if yes and 0 if no.

10 points

QUESTION 7

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1970 and ending with Q4 of 2000. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. How many stars would you include next to the slope estimate in a regression table?

I am so close to passing my Econ stat class but I cannot for the life of me get the answers to these questions. I have passed every test since but I am really struggling and I would appreciate any help I could get.
Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1970 and ending with 2005. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate b0.

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1960 and ending with Q4 of 1990. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate R squared.

10 points

QUESTION 3

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1980 and ending with Q4 of 2010. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Calculate b1.

10 points

QUESTION 4

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1970 and ending with 2005. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Is the residual plot consistent with the assumptions of OLS? Write 1 if yes and 0 if no.

10 points

QUESTION 5

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1965 and ending with 1995. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Using your regression results, what is the predicted (estimated) change in the unemployment rate given a 1 unit increase in the GDP?

10 points

QUESTION 6

1. Gather yearly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and yearly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with 1960 and ending with 2000. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. Using a significance level of 5%, is there a statistically significant relationship between GDP and unemployment rate? Write 1 if yes and 0 if no.

10 points

QUESTION 7

1. Gather quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data and quarterly unemployment rates (UNRATE) for the US starting with Q1 of 1970 and ending with Q4 of 2000. Run a regression with GDP as your independent variable and unemployment rate (UNRATE) as your dependent variable. How many stars would you include next to the slope estimate in a regression table?

I already published this theory a year ago, and now I'm republishing it because I understood how Reddit works better and where to publish my theories or ideas.
Moving on to the theory, it's based on the Pixar theory, about how all movies are in the same world, but in the case of Illumination Pictures, there's a lot more evidence, and most of it is in the movie Pets. In the park scene of the film, Gru appears in a cameo passing by with Kyle, which confirms that the two franchises are in the same world. Taking these two films as a basis, then we can say that the world of Illumination is a normal world, with a human society and animals cannot talk to humans but talk to each other, which also suggests that films like Migration and Hop, since there is a human society and, except for easter bunnies and easter chicks, animals can't talk.
Now, this comes into contradiction with other films produced by Illumination, such as Lorax and Sing, in the first they present us with a society without plants but which is slowly recovering, and in the second a society of anthropomorphic animals.
The answer is always given to us in Pets. When Kevin Hart's character drives the bus, you can see that there is a poster for "Sing" behind it, which tells us that it is a movie within that world, as is possibly the Lorax. I think this can also be applied to other films for which the rights do not belong to Illumination, but are lent by third parties, such as Doctor Seuss' wife or Nintendo.
To resume, here is the thing: There is a real world with a timeline (Minions in 1968, Minions 2 in 1976, Despicable Me in 2010, Hop in 2011, Despicable Me 2 in 2013, Pets in 2016, Despicable Me 3 in 2017, Pets 2 in 2019, Migration in 2023 and Despicable Me 4 in 2024) and there are some films that are films in this world (Lorax, The Grinch, Sing and Super Mario)

If you're in the original ending camp, I think you'll agree. Deep Blue Sea is regarded as a cheap 90s popcorn film, but I read the script and discovered that they didn't just change the ending, they were forced to go back and cut so many elements in the story we didn't even notice, some of this extra deleted content wasn't included on the DVD or the 2010 Blu-Ray release of the film. I know these scenes were shot because there are stills floating around and some of this unseen content is in one of the TV spots. They cut so many scenes involving Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) after the ending was re-shot for the sole purpose of making you feel less sympathetic toward her so her death would feel less tragic and more deserved. They did this because the test audiences hated her, viewed her as the villain for causing the movie's conflict and felt that she deserved to die. They didn't have enough time to go back and re-shoot all of Susan's other scenes, which in my opinion would include changing her personality to make her more villainous or give her a more sinister motive. They just took the easy way out instead. I feel like the test audiences ruined her character and the story by killing her off. Just cutting half of her scenes to make you feel "Meh" toward her just made Susan a bland and uninteresting character opposed to what she was supposed to be. She was the main character and it was her story in a way. She was the only character with a story arc. I never saw her as a true villain because she never acted like one. She didn't have the motive of a villain. I know she screwed up and was the brainchild of the shark experiments but the deaths were all accidental and unintentional. She didn't want any of this to happen. The experiments with the sharks just went wrong, there wasn’t anything inherently malicious with her actions. She didn't know that a helicopter winch would break off causing Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgard) to fall into the water for the shark to grab.
I would change this movie by adding in all of this deleted content that was cut from the theatrical version thanks to the test audiences negative reaction to Susan redeeming herself by killing her own creation. I want to add all deleted content, not just featured on the Blu-Ray, but featured in the script too.
I would add in one more detail about Susan's backstory aside from her dad dying from Alzheimer's and her mom dying in a car crash. In the script, it's revealed that Susan was the youngest scientist to win a MacArthur grant and had a brilliant mind. Show things from her perspective so the audience can understand her point of view and humanize her more.
I would also add in an explanation for why Carter Blake (Thomas Jane) ended up at Aquatica. In the script, it's revealed that Carter took the job because he needed work but stayed because he really liked Susan.
Elaborate a bit more about Russell Franklin (Samuel L. Jackson) and his avalanche backstory. Franklin was on a hike in the alps with a group when they were hit by an avalanche and resorted to killing and eating two in their group to survive.
In the scene where she threatens Carter about his job, the script notes she's embarrassed because of how it sounds and tries to soften things up with Carter in the next few lines when he walks off because he is upset with her. In the scene, you'll notice she turns back to him. They cut away before she delivers her next bit of lines, embarrassed about what she said in the heat of the moment. But in the script, Carter ignores her and won't answer so she turns and walks off embarrassed.
I would change the scene where the shark breaks the window with Jim Whitlock's corpse. I would have Susan, Carter, Franklin, Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport) and Janice Higgins (Jacqueline Mackenzie) start running to the door as soon as the glass starts cracking. It's better than just staring at the glass like idiots.
In the theatrical cut, Janice berates her for what happened to Jim. Even though Jim was equally responsible. But they actually made up before Janice was killed. Initially, Susan tries comforting her, but Janice rejects her because she blames Susan for everything. There's also another deleted scene where Janice is berating Susan and Susan tells Janice that Jim was her best friend. Janice asks "Really? When was his birthday and what did he like on his pizza?" Susan is a wreck and doesn't answer which makes you think Janice is correct while Susan is wrong. That made the deleted scenes because it made Susan look bad. But there was a scene that followed (which didn't make the deleted scenes). Janice is sitting by herself and Susan sneaks up and quietly says Jim's birthday, which takes Janice by surprise. Janice starts to cry and Susan names off Jim's favorite pizza toppings. Janice realizes Susan really did care about him and forgives her. Susan even gives her a heartfelt apology in a different scene. When Carter loses all hope on the ladder after Janice is eaten, you'll notice in the scene, Susan climbs over beside him. But there was actually dialogue that followed which was cut. She comforts Carter because he expresses guilt. He's also hopeless but she fills him with hope. And then Sherman Preacher Dudley (LL Cool J) shows up to save Susan, Carter and Scoggins, proving her optimism to be true. She even talks to Preacher about Janice and Jim, asking if he knew they were in love, after Janice's death while holding a picture of her. I appreciated this because, when your friends die, you aren't just going to move on like it's nothing. I know you can't drag the grief out in these films but little scenes like this make it so much more believable.
Establish Susan's relationship with Carter. She tells him she wants to take him up on that beer (which he offered at her birthday party) as she nurses his arm in the bathroom. In the theatrical cut, they cut away before she takes the gauze from him and starts wrapping his arm up. That's when the conversation gets deeper and personal between the two. Carter also talks to her about his time in prison. Carter served two years in prison for smuggling. I know it's implied he had a rough past, but I never knew it was prison. Before Carter and Scoggins leave for the control panels, Susan gives Carter a scuba knife for protection and Carter mocked her over the knife's size because it's small and won't work on a shark. But he keeps it in his leg strap. I would have Susan become a voice of reason in some scenes. In the script, she tries to talk Carter and Scoggins out of going to the control panels, warning them how dangerous it is and likely to fail... and she was correct, as Carter escaped after Scoggins was eaten.
Last but not least, I want to change the ending by adding in the original ending cause it's a much better ending. Preacher survives too. Everyone thinks he dies in the original ending for some reason but he still lives. The difference is, in the original ending, when he passes out after Susan nurses his leg, that's it. You don't see him again until the end. I prefer this because there's no way Preacher could have miraculously found the strength to hop up and save the day, as badly as he was wounded. Plus how did he know the plan? How was he able to also find the harpoon gun and battery he didn't even know existed and as quickly as he did at that? That's one of the reasons I hate the theatrical ending. In the original ending, Susan and Carter are looking at the ocean, admiring it's beauty, Susan expresses regret for what her actions caused, saying that all she wanted was to save people, not slaughter them. Carter realizes that the sharks were using them to flood the facility so it would sink and the sharks would escape out into open water and be free. Susan gave a monologue about how the shark can't escape because it will breed, take over the ocean and kill everyone and everything that it comes across. That's when Susan and Carter decide that they must kill it. While they're setting up the explosives, Carter tells Susan he learned how to rig explosives in prison. When Susan jumps into the water after cutting her hand, Carter rescues her unlike the theatrical ending where he gets there a second too late and she's eaten. In the original ending, he has her climb over him. She hops onto his shoulders and uses the other rungs to pull herself up. But she's not strong enough to pull Carter up despite her best efforts. Carter looks back at the shark, he lets go, falls into the water and rides the shark by clinging onto its fin. Susan climbs the tower and aims the harpoon at the shark. She fires and the harpoon hits the shark but penetrates Carter's leg. He yells at Susan to detonate the explosives, but she's hesitant because she knows it will kill him. When the cable is close to running out she realizes she has to do it. She blows the shark up. She has an emotional breakdown and starts crying believing she's killed Carter. Carter's head appears and she rushes over to pull him up. He reveals that he freed himself by using the scuba knife she gave him earlier, telling her that the knife came in handy after all. He teases her a bit about trying to blow him up and then they kiss. Susan, Carter and Preacher get on a raft and use it to leave Aquatica. While on the raft, Susan finds a bottle floating in the ocean, inside that bottle is a tape. It's the videotape Preacher made when he thought he was going to die. She gives the tape to Preacher since he lived. Then they see the next crew approaching on the boat.
And this is how I would fix Deep Blue Sea. I know people being picked off by sharks is more exciting, but there's nothing wrong with appreciating a good, deep story with more realistic and relatable characters from time to time too and I really believe this version was far superior to the theatrical cut. Plus, there's no way with this extra content, Carter and Preacher would have been able to carry on like she never existed. Carter would’ve been utterly gutted by Susan’s death as they grew close throughout the film. I mean, this was originally her story so naturally she should have lived alongside Carter and Preacher. The theatrical version sucked majorly compared to the original version. Thomas Jane and director Renny Harlin are both supporting the original ending petition. Hopefully Warner Bros will finally release all deleted content.

"In February 2010 the Commission adopted a new short sale price test restriction, which is commonly referred to as the “alternative uptick rule.” The alternative uptick rule is designed to restrict short selling from further driving down the price of a stock that has dropped more than 10 percent in one day compared to the closing price on the previous day."
-source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/shortrestrict

To preface this post, I want to give the disclaimer that like many things, there is not a black and white answer the question. I'm writing this as an experienced tech professional, and the information provided is based on opinion.
To start with. A little bit of history..
The golden age of software engineering(and similar jobs) is over. At least for the next 5 - 10 years. I don't think this is an unpopular opinion. The reason why between the years of 2010 - 2022, these jobs exploded, was because of the boom of the internet for commercial and personal use.
This is different from the dotcom boom of 2000s, where the internet was just starting and most of the products being created were for basic things like: putting banking on the internet, putting videos on the internet, etc.
The boom in the 2010s was related to the widespread popularity of commercial and personal products. Things like Uber, Spotify, and Salesforce. With the sudden increased usage of the digital world, there were MILLIONS of companies rushing to create digital products.
However, we're starting to see the rise and fall of some of these products, millions of startups failings, and less VC funding. In case you don't know, VC stands for Venture Capital, which are basically investment companies that give money to other companies to help them grow and develop, in return for partial ownership of the company.
As the industry began to mature, successful companies started to emerge, and many more started to fail.
The present day..
Software engineering and like jobs will continue to be important, and there will be a high demands for these engineers. Nearly every company will still need a website, a place to manage their data, and people to manage their hardware. BUT.. the basic technologies they need to run their company will become more efficient. AND there will be less research and innovation because the a lot of the trial and error already occurred.
We're in a weird spot where the demand for workers is now decreasing from it's recent peaks, and the supply of workers is now increasing because of how all the benefits of being a software engineer in the past decade.
This has really unfortunate consequences for any recent graduates or others trying to break into the tech field. There are WAY more beginning career people than jobs available. Which is made even worse with the amount of layoffs there are, where mid-level employees are now having to settle for entry level jobs.
What can we do?
I have two pieces of advice for people interested in the topic, or wanting to break into the field but can't. Try breaking in from a adjacent field, where you can get some exposure to tech. Things that data entry, analytics(this can be finance, supply chain etc). Then try to learn as much as you can from the tech people at your company.
The second piece of advice. Go into a different field. Software engineering is not for everyone. You have to learn and understand some relatively complex topics, and it's becoming harder and harder to be competitive in the industry. Healthcare, supply chain, and many other industries are booming right now.
Understanding history, you can see that certain industries will rise and fall. For the near future, technology might be one of the harder careers to break into. Something like healthcare would be that's expected to grow exponentially. The average population of the world is getting older, as less and less people are wanting to have kids. There will be higher demand for healthcare professionals and healthcare technology.
Do your best to review and understand these trends, and hopefully you can create a good life and career. Best of luck!
​
**If you found any of this helpful, consider checking out a referral link. You get additional sign up and welcome bonuses. Signing up and using Rakuten for cash back is free!*\*
​

• Explaining why travel hacking is my favorite side hustle, along with step by step instructions.
  • https://www.reddit.com/sidehustlemoney/comments/17jswev/how_i_basically_travel_for_free/

​

• Rakuten is a reputable website/app with millions of users that gives you up 20% cash back on popular stores like Nike, Target, and Petsmart
  • www.rakuten.com/QIANTE3?eeid=44971
• SoFi is a great online checking/savings bank that offers up to 4.9% interest on accounts(currently).
  • https://www.sofi.com/invite/money?gcp=d8903675-1661-40fb-8ff6-f87843aa727e&isAliasGcp=false

I know that with a spousal RSP, there is a three year attribution rule that applies. So if I make a contribution to my wife’s spousal RSP January 1, 2024, any withdrawal of those funds before January 1, 2027 would get attributed back to me. Fair enough.
But my Google searching has so far been unable to clearly answer this question.
If I have been making spousal RSP contributions January 1 every year going back to, say, 2010, do I have to stop making any new contributions for 3 years until the attribution rule no longer applies - or are the spousal RSP contributions earlier than 3 years ago not subject to attribution?
Thanks.

Hi all! New GTI owner, but longtime fan. I’ve wanted a GTI since I got my first car in 2010–a—2007 Rabbit—and was fortunate enough to have just purchased a (US) 2020 Golf GTI this past Wednesday. Lovin’ it so far, but do have a few questions a browse through the owner’s manual didn’t answer that I hope some fanatics can.
I’ve been able to get into the Personalization menu and added my name, but every time I turn the car off and then back on, it always defaults to “Welcome, Guest.” Using the Customization Wizard, I found where I think you can change the “Guest” account to whatever name, but I wasn’t able to change it? The touchscreen wouldn’t respond wherever I tapped, neither scroll knob did anything, nor any button on the wheel. Is this a glitch? Surely this is where I’m supposed to actually add my name for it to be remembered and used each time?

For those of you who've never heard of this, trust me, I am not making this up. Stay with me till the end of the article.
Back when Dragon Age Origins: Awakening was released in March 2010, Dragon Age Origins had already been out for 6 months, Mass Effect 2 had just been released that January, and Bioware was building up the hype.
Within that hype, there was talk of a crossover DLC. I remember seeing a preview of it on one of the game review channels on YouTube.
In this DLC, The Normandy was supposed to visit a planet which would bring Shepard into Ferelden, and the ship runs into some damage, because of which Shepard would be stuck in Ferelden for the length of the mission.
Shepard's mission was supposed to start when he/she comes upon an injured Warden Commander (The main character from Dragon Age Origins), and runs some quests to save their life and complete their investigation. It was supposed to bring Shepard in contact with some of the tougher enemies in Dragon Age Origins, like the Darkspawn Ogre.
The Blood Dragon Armor that is available as a DLC armor set in ME2 was supposed to be a parting gift from the Warden Commander to Shepard at the end of the mission.
While absolutely uncharacteristic of both games, I was very kicked about playing Shepard in the Dragon Age world (both games are still on the top of my all time favorites list).
Whatever happened to that DLC? Did Bioware get scared of making something so over the top? Or was it just publicity hype, that Bioware took down once ME2 and DA:O Awakening earned their money back? I can't seem to find any mention of it anywhere on the internet.
Edit: So I think I may have found the answer. The "Shepard in Thedas" stream series on YouTube started on the same concept as this idea, but eventually just turned into modding Shepard's face into Dragon Age Inquisition. I suspect then, that this preview was an earlier, very ambitious attempt to create a fan made mod with assets from both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins: Awakening. So ambitious in fact, that it was impossible to finish, even if Bioware itself had picked it up.
Sorry for stringing you along, fam.
Now if anyone wants to join me in smoking the next round of ***, drop your most outlandish game stories from Mass Effect in the comments.

I've worked on a reimagining of the DCEU with the franchise starting in 2006 where the film for Superman released that year serves as a reboot. Phase 1 consists of Superman: Man Of Tomorrow, Wonder Woman: Warrior Of Truth, Batman: The Caped Crusader, Green Arrow: Emerald Archer, The Flash: Fastest Man Alive, Green Lantern Corps, and Superman II: Man Of Steel. Read each of these if you want to catch up.
Here's how Phase 1 brings each of the heroes together after they get their solo movies:

• Justice League: World's Finest Heroes (2010)

The movie begins with Batman reintroduced, who watches the news, satellite, and archive footage of Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow. Alfred enters and asks what he thinks of them. Bruce responds by saying they're powerful and could be useful or very dangerous from how much power they have. The next scene has a similar scenario with Lex Luthor, who watches footage of Scarecrow's fear toxin, Cheetah fighting in the jungle, the power of Weather Wizard as he's alongside The Rogues, Dark Archer's fight with Green Arrow, and Hector Hammond's abilities
A few days later, Senator Finch heads to her office and is met by someone in her chair. The scene implies it's Lex Luthor, but we only see the sight of his mouth and not his full face. She demands to know what Lex wants and he wants her to approve a project he's working on that can provide better security and protection for the world, which Superman and other vigilantes can't. She refuses, at first, since she knows how it isn't about protecting the people and it's for himself, but he blackmails her by threatening her family and she's forced to comply with Lex's demands when threatened.
Cue Title Card: "Justice League: World's Finest Heroes"
The first scene has Lex Luthor bring the Legion of Doom together. He starts with Cheeta, Dark Archer, and Weather Wizard, whom he offers money and personal promises to convince them, then Scarecrow and Hector Hammond, last, who are a bit harder to persuade, but he finds ways around it to get them to join him. Hector Hammond is brought from his space prison when he's broken out by reprogrammed droids Brainiac used to control during the events of Superman II and are how Lex's property.
Lex has them gathered around a table with food for them and gives insight of his disdain for heroes and he wants their help in taking them down, in exchange he sticks to his promises for them. It's an uneasy alliance, but the villains have a common urge to get back at the heroes who've thwarted their goals, so they decide to agree to work together. Lex and Tommy Merlyn use their resources to give the villains upgrades. Scarecrow modifies his fear toxin & Hector Hammond rebuilds the body of Despotellis and has control over it instead of it controlling him while Weather Wizard, Cheeta, Dark Archer, and Lex are already strong in their own right, so they don't need many upgrades since their plan is coming into fruition.
The next scene shows Batman hearing about a heist taking place through the radio and taking the Batwing to investigate. It leads to a government facility and the closer he gets to the location, the worse the weather around him gets. He lands the Batwing out of sight & sneaks into the facility while using stealth to avoid being spotted by the intruders. He suspects an intruder following him and it's shown to be Green Arrow, who's annoyed by his snarkiness. They continue to use stealth to observe the intruders and at the right moment, they confront Scarecrow and Dark Archer, who are stealing robotic parts & weapons.
The first fight scene has Batman & Green Arrow work together against Scarecrow & Dark Archer, whose upgrades give them an advantage over the heroes. They hold their own as they fight them, but Scarecrow releases a dose of upgraded fear toxin and spreads it through the facility. Batman and Green Arrow relive their greatest fears, which is Bruce hallucinating a Gotham City in ruins from his failure to protect it and Oliver being stuck on the island he fought hard to escape and as the effects get worse, Batman finds an antidote in his utility belt while getting himself and Oliver out of the facility to cure him of the effects.
Scarecrow and Dark Archer are backed up by Weather Wizard and Dark Archer, so it seems they're outnumbered until Superman, Wonder Woman, and The Flash show up to stop them and it has the second fight scene shows the heroes trying to stop the villains. In contrast, the villains have an easier time syncing with each other to fulfill the tasks Lex gave to them while the heroes aren't off to a good start working together but are doing their best to communicate. Hector Hammond arrives in an airship provided by Lex with a rebuilt version of Despotellis, whom he orders to take them down. Hector Hammond's arrival gives the Legion of Doom an advantage over the heroes and Despotellis makes a challenging opponent for them to evade.
Just as it seems the heroes are outmatched, Green Lantern arrives to come to their aid and it forces the villains to quickly escape before they can be caught with help from Hector Hammond & a few of Lex's droids. The heroes recover from the damage dealt to them and their time regrouping has them get to know each other while Batman is a bit weary of their presence and investigates any traces left in the government facility. Batman uses detective vision to deduce how the villains stole the robotic parts and weapons from the facility and Superman meets with him to help. Batman shows the others what he deduced in the facility and believes whatever they're planning and whoever's in charge of them, it'll have them all targeted. Superman and Wonder Woman think it's best if they work together to find out why each of their villains is working together and they suspect different reasons as to why.
The heroes get on the same page and Superman tries convincing Batman to work with them, but he isn't willing to work with them yet since he prefers to settle his business in Gotham City to analyze what he found with his detective vision. Before Superman can try convincing Batman again, he enters the Batwing and leaves while the heroes are left to think of a plan. Superman suspects the person behind this is Lex Luthor from what his super-hearing gathered from the conversation between the villains during the heist.
Back in the Batcave, Bruce and Alfred analyze the evidence found in the government facility to deduce what the villains were after, and how and why Scarecrow is involved since it's part of something bigger than Gotham City. Alfred suggests he should work with the other heroes since he can't face them alone. Bruce refuses, at first, since while he can work with others, he doesn't feel comfortable with working alongside other heroes since Gotham City is where his business lies. Alfred persists in convincing Bruce to give it a chance since there's a bigger world out there amongst Gotham City and it's a chance to do more than just fight criminals since the situation is bigger than himself, which has Bruce reluctantly agree to give it a chance since he still feels skeptical of working with other heroes.
Superman and Wonder Woman bring together Green Arrow, Green Lantern, and The Flash with Batman secretly following them from the shadows to observe their capabilities and decide if it's right to join them. Superman gets a lead on an operation by Ceasar Carlini, a crime boss in Metropolis working for Lex to smuggle weapons for him. The heroes quickly dismantle their operation with Batman in the background who takes down a few of their men, unknown to them. Superman tries to interrogate Carlini, who tries to not be intimidated since he knows the heroes won't do anything rash until Batman appears and breaks a few of his bones to get answers, which has him admit he's working for someone, but the figure is anonymous and has power over his operations.
Superman suspects the figure he's talking about is Lex and tells Batman to let him go. Outside of the area while the police arrest Carlini and his men, Batman tells Superman he's decided to agree to work with them and says meet him in the Batcave for planning and strategy. Superman uses his X-ray vision to see who Batman is, but the material in his suit prevents him from getting an image of his identity, which makes him a bit suspicious of Batman accepting his offer, but he decides to trust him.
The heroes follow Batman to the Batcave and Alfred is above them in Wayne Manor so they don't know his identity yet. The Flash explores areas of the Batcave with this super speed and thinks it's quite cool, but Batman warns him to not break anything. Batman debriefs them on his findings from the government facility during their first encounter with them and the evidence he has is the robotic parts & weapons used to be part of a former government project Lex Luthor had developed before it was rejected for being deemed as too dangerous for them to use, which has them figure out Lex is behind this and it's why he formed his own "Legion of Doom" to distract them.
Batman asks for an explanation of what abilities the heroes have and they give a brief rundown of their capabilities. Superman's abilities concern Batman since he's one of the most powerful people on Earth, so he asks for their weaknesses, which the team is divided on sharing with him since it seems like a sign of distrust. Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow object to it, but Superman and The Flash share their weaknesses with Batman as a sign of trust. When the strategy session ends, it's time for them to train to test their abilities and see if they'll be prepared. Before it starts, The Flash suggests team names like "Super-Friends", "The Syndicate" or "Avengers". Batman dismisses it and he says they'll go over that, later on.
The training session between the heroes has them learn about how they operate. Batman and Green Arrow spar in a fight, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern test their abilities in power-based sparring, and a race ensues between Superman and The Flash from across the river near the Batcave to test which one is the fastest, but they're tied by the time they return to the Batcave.
Just as it seems the heroes are learning to understand each other more, one of Lex's droids spots the race between Superman and The Flash. It alerts the other droids and Despotellis to secretly follow them back to the Batcave. A fight scene ensues for the heroes where they work together to fight against Lex's droids and find the weak spots of Despotellis, but it's more challenging than they thought since the droids and Despotellis know their weaknesses and use them to their advantage to exploit them. Batman uses the Batwing to help Green Lantern fight the large body of Despotellis in the sky while the other League members fight the droids below.
The droids blast them with Scarecrow's fear toxin, which has Superman, The Flash, & Wonder Woman experience their personal fears while Green Arrow finds a rare gas mask in the Batcave in a high area to avoid facing its effects again. Superman hallucinates his wife and son dead because of his inability to always be there for them, The Flash hallucinates a yellow silhouette with sparks of red lightning taunting him about how he isn't fast enough to save his loved ones, and Wonder Woman hallucinates the Amazons being disappointed in her.
Hector Hammond uses this to exploit their fears when he sees footage from Lex's droids by using telepathy to amplify it and turn them on each other. Batman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern would work together to free them of the trance they're under by dodging their attacks to find the antidote for the fear toxin. While this happens, Green Lantern tries to hold Despotellis in place with the power of his ring but the pressure from the commotion makes it hard to concentrate. Before he can break, Bruce and Oliver find the antidote and spread it through the Batcave with a device that cures them of the effects and it helps the heroes regroup and face Despotellis together so it can be defeated.
The heroes regroup and there's a bit of tension from the fight, but they settle it and head out to find where the Legion of Doom is. The heroes track them to another government facility containing the final robotic parts Lex needs for what he's building. There's a shot of the heroes standing side by side when they reach the location and prepare for the intruders. When they enter the facility, they confront Lex Luthor in His Warsuit, Scarecrow, Cheeta, Weather Wizard, Hector Hammond, and Dark Archer, which enacts a fight sequence between the League members and the Legion of Doom.
While the fight between the heroes and villains occurs, Lex activates the robotic parts the villains collected to come together. It catches the heroes off guard since they find out Lex meant to distract them so his best creation can be built. Once it activates, the heroes try to attack it but it adapts to their every move and even copies their abilities to throw back at them. It buys the Legion of Doom time to escape while the heroes are occupied with the advanced android who's a step ahead of them. The heroes start getting overwhelmed, which forces them to fall back as they barely escape.
The android returns to Lex Luthor's base since it's under his command and he sees the schematics and programming of the android to see if it's functional so it works for their plan, which it does. The old project reactivated by Lex was labeled as "Anti Metahuman Adaptive Zootomic Organism", and Lex jokes about how the name's too long to feel threatening, so he shortens it to "A.M.A.Z.O". Lex visits Senator Finch and a big demand he has is to have A.M.A.Z.O approved by the government with him overseeing it, which she's forced to comply with. It'll have to be approved by a congress bill to pass an Anti-Metahuman bill, which will be worked on.
The heroes return to the Batcave to regroup. While Batman analyses what his detective vision found in the area, the heroes have a bit of a falling out over how they failed to beat the Legion of Doom and think it's from their inability to listen to each other. Superman tries to calm them down and before the argument can escalate, Batman interjects by sharing new information about the android and how it was a past government project Lex tried to work on and get approved by the government, but it never got approved when government officials found it too suspicious and risky as a form of national security, especially since Lex's background was too shady.
The heroes, especially Superman, are worried since if A.M.A.Z.O becomes unstoppable, no one will be able to stop Lex or the android, and every metahuman will be killed or captured. As a way to ease tension and rebuild the team's trust, Wonder Woman has the idea of giving each member the lasso of truth to have them open up to each other about what motivated them to use their power for good.
Batman is up first since the team doesn't know much about them. Bruce carefully considers and accepts the lasso, which has him open up about his secret identity, how the death of his parents drove him to prevent more tragedies from happening, working with others, and having the hidden fear and paranoia of the bigger world amongst Gotham City until they showed him why teamwork can make them stronger because individually, they are not enough, and the fear him and they feel can be used to make them stronger. He saw it in Dick Grayson, saw it in them, and especially sees it in Superman and Wonder Woman.
Diana takes the lasso and tells the truth about how she's worked with others for many centuries and saw the horrors and humanity of man's world and spent her whole life hiding from it, and as flawed as they are, they show humanity can still thrive if they keep pushing forward. Clark is given the lasso and talks about how he's always strived to make a Better Tomorrow for humanity but it can be tough to handle alone since he relies on all of his power to defend Earth, but good people like them make it worth fighting for, no matter what comes their way.
Hal Jordan is given the lasso and says he's felt fear in many ways whether it's blindly facing it, feeling it, or fearing the weight of expectations he has as part of the Green Lantern Corps, but a Green Lantern is always supposed to be fearless for himself and his allies. Lastly, Barry Allen is given the lasso and talks about how he spent his whole life searching for the impossible since there are many things in this world that are hard to explain since he was a child and chased it to do more, but instead of running from his past because of the death of his mom and his father being locked up, he runs towards a better future as they do. After the team vents on their past to regain trust in each other, they regroup and prepare to stop Lex Luthor, Amazo, and The Legion of Doom, once and for all.
The next scene shows Lex making the finishing touches to A.M.A.Z.O's programming so it functions right. The Legion of Doom questions Lex about whether he'll stick to his deal for them and supposedly promises to, but he seems too focused on A.M.A.Z.O. Cheeta asks if the android will target them or he'll make sure its programming will know they're on Lex's side since it's his creation. Lex assures her he has the android under control so he'll work on the kinks, but he doesn't seem to care about the Legion that much since they've had their usefulness.
Hector Hammond uses his telepathy to mind control the government officials and have them approve of A.M.A.Z.O when it's presented by Senator Finch as she's forced by Lex to show it in a positive light, but the villains learn the heroes have recovered and will arrive soon, so they get together and prepare for them while Lex has it recorded with a droid of his. The heroes use what they learned to make a better effort at fighting the Legion of Doom while switching between opponents. The team uses it to their advantage to finally defeat them so they can stop A.M.A.Z.O and find where Lex Luthor is,
Since Lex has no use of the Legion anymore, he gets his upgraded Warsuit ready, which now has A.M.A.Z.O's ability to copy the abilities of the heroes and it makes him and A.M.A.Z.O true threats to the heroes, so it has the team act cautiously when fighting Lex and Amazo. The final fight has Superman and Batman face with Lex Luthor while Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and The Flash are occupied with A.M.A.Z.O.
The League defeats A.M.A.Z.O when they identify weak spots and override its programming when copying their abilities, which leaves an opening for them to finally destroy it. They do the same for Lex's Warsuit to defeat him. Afterward, the police arrive to arrest the Legion of Doom and Lex Luthor, which enacts an epilogue where it shows the heroes helping to clean up the mess left by Lex and the Legion, congress thanking the heroes for saving them, and Lex Luthor being put on trial. Lex tries to lie, but since Senator Finch and the League show undeniable proof of his crimes, he's sentenced to life in prison so he'll be away for a long time.
The heroes meet in a building that becomes their headquarters since they're officially a team. They still wonder what their team name can be and Barry Allen comes up with a name called "the Justice League", which the team likes and agrees to call themselves. The movie ends with the heroes willing to work together and are labeled as the "World's Finest Heroes" by the media. The heroes learn about a robbery taking place and it's being caused by a group of criminals called the "Royal Flush Gang" and it has them rush into battle together as the screen cuts to black.

1. Mid-credits scene: Amanda Waller observes the news about the Justice League becoming popular among the locals after they stopped Lex Luthor and she analyses files over a variety of metahumans criminals, and mercenaries she has tabs on for a project she's working on for if these heroes were to over go rogue or if the world loses them, which is labeled as "Task Force X". This sets up the Suicide Squad as the government's secret countermeasure for the Justice League, going into Phase 2 and future phases.
2. Post-credits scene: We're shown a planet that has burning firepits and is in a desolate state. A hologram of the accomplishments of the heroes is shown to its ruler by his disciple. He believes since Earth has new protectors like Kryptonians, Lanterns, Amazons, and humans with sheer willpower, it's time for them to strike when they have the chance. The ruler is shown as a dark silhouette and tells him to have patience since they'll need to prepare to challenge them as Earth will be his one day. The dark silhouette is implied to be Darkseid and his disciple is shown to be Steppenwolf, but he isn't shown yet and will be revealed much later in a future Phase.

This concludes Phase 1 of my reimagined DCEU. More is to come in the future.

Hi Everyone.
I hope everyone is well. Having recently graduated from university, I now have time to reflect and better understand myself. I'm currently 21 years old, but back in 2010, when I was 7, my mother had my 22-year-old male cousin migrate from his home country to stay with us while he looked for work and accommodation. At first, he seemed lovely, always looking after me and my two younger brothers. He often bought us chocolate, took us to the park, let us play on his phone, and watched TV with us. However, this perception came crashing down months later. One day he took me to my room, the very room where I am writing this now and started to aggressively kiss me in the worst way imaginable. It was awful. He gave me his phone to play on to distract me while he did it. I usually turned away, engrossed in the game on his phone, which caused him to take off my clothes instead. He usually molested my intimate areas, which to my innocence, I giggled because I thought he was trying to tickle me. However, even in my tiny mind, I knew something was not right.
Amid my confusion and fear of telling my very strict mother, I kept my mouth shut. As a child, I was extremely shy, timid, and incredibly sensitive. Things started to go from bad to worse as he increasingly took me to my room to molest me. Each time, he would go a step further. He started to take full advantage when my mother went abroad with my brothers for two weeks. He made me watch porn, kept placing my hand on various parts of his body, and other atrocities that I would rather not disturb you guys with. As time went on, with no one in my immediate family knowing what was going on, he started to notice that I had grown a more 'womanly body' he stared at me intently. I just knew something was going to progress since I was going through puberty.
One day, in the middle of the night, while both my mum and dad were sleeping, he sneakily came to my room at around 2 in the morning. I believe he attempted to rape me, however, he retreated, perhaps feeling nervous. I just remember feeling frozen in fear because he kept glancing at me, thinking I was asleep. These glances still haunt me to this day. I also remember one day when my tutor was over at my house, and when they left, the abuser came and rubbed my chest under my dress. I remember feeling really embarassed. Post-2015, I was so busy with school and exams that I didn't attempt to recall these events and instead swept them under the rug. I also was dealing with my toxic parents a lot during this time. My dad was pretty abusive, he would always punch and hit me if I did something wrong. As a result, I was quite adept at not remembering what happened, to be honest.
However, last year, I felt like the walls I created to stop myself from thinking about this situation started to break. I started to feel more sad about what happened. This sadness amplified as I tried to tell my mum small bits and pieces, like the rubbing chest part, but she instead shouted at me and told me it was my fault and I must have liked it because I did not tell anyone. My dad does not have a clue either. The only person I was able to tell was my younger brother, who I completely confided in and told everything to. Which was really nice and relieving haha. In 2018, the cousin who abused me got married, and attending his wedding was brutal for me. He also had a child, and whenever my mum invites him over with the child, I can never bear to look at his child, nor allow it in my room. I know I shouldn't do that. What's even worse is that my abuser's sister, who is from back home, will be migrating to my area soon, and she texts me occasionally, which feels weird. But I know I can't blame her for what her brother has done. I definitely experience flashbacks, especially when my mom invites him over. Even though I usually lock myself in my room, whenever I hear his voice downstairs, I have to put on my headphones because I start shuddering really bad.
It's now 2024, and I can feel my inner child yearning for answers about what happened. Now that I'm an adult, I feel like I want to better understand this situation from a psychological perspective. I have a deeply sensitive and empathetic personality, which I worry might be too much for some people. Throughout my life as well, I have also been known to be the 'therapist friend' which is why I have never really been able to disclose this with friends either. Apologies if it seems like I'm treating Reddit as a therapy session, but I'd really appreciate some advice on navigating what happened and any tips for healing.
Thank you all <3
​
​

Ms. Sweet and team: thank you for everything. You made a huge impact on my life and many others. 🙏
Alright friends here’s my timeline.
Full class. Applied May 2021 for two schools (which is really one 🙄) Devry and Keller. I consolidated my loans once in 2013. I was with FedLoan and was moved to EdFinancial.
My total student loan obligation was just north of $150,000. I graduated in 2010 and 2013, respectively. In November 2022 my account reduced from $150k to $112k. To this day I still don’t know why.
Fast forward to April 2024. My account balance zeroed out with EdFinancial and with Dept. of Ed. They claimed the effective date of the discharge was 7/5/2023. I immediately filed disputes with all 3 credit bureaus to delete the balances. I also called EdFinancial to confirm I was due a refund check. I was told the “check” was sent to the Dept. of Ed on 4/22 and I should have it in about 22 days.
On May 7th I receive a follow up email from EdFin regarding my compliant I filed in Oct 2023. I was told the exact refund amount and the date it was sent to the Dept. of Edu, May 6th. The email asked me to wait for processing.
Today, May 17th, I received one check for the exact dollar amount I was told. This amount matches my data and my personal records. The “stub” says “This refund is being sent due to student loan refund effective date 7/5/2023” I am one happy camper.
I’ll still be around supporting others. My partner is waiting for Nelnet to sort out his once consolidated with Devry, Keller, and a real school. Let me know if I can help answer any questions.

I have a current CCW issued by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and I am up for renewal. I took my class a few weeks ago and they said that a CCW holder is not allowed within 1000' of a school zone unless we are driving through it. That seemed inaccurate to me so I did some digging and found these 2 penal codes related to school zones and exclusions.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=626.9
and
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=26150&lawCode=PEN
The first states:

Penal Code - PEN

PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680.4]

( Part 1 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES [626 - 653.75]

( Title 15 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 1. Schools [626 - 626.11]

( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1969, Ch. 1424. )

626.9.

(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), shall be punished as specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
...
(5) When the person holds a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, who is carrying that firearm in an area that is within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school, but is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 from carrying a firearm in accordance with that license as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), or (e) of Section 26230.
and the second states:

Penal Code - PEN

PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34400]

Penal Code - PEN

PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34400]

( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

TITLE 4. FIREARMS [23500 - 34400]

( Title 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

DIVISION 5. CARRYING FIREARMS [25300 - 26406]

( Division 5 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

CHAPTER 4. License to Carry A Pistol, Revolver, or Other Firearm Capable of Being Concealed Upon the Person [26150 - 26235]

( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

26150.

(a) When a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county shall issue or renew a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
then goes on to state all of the requirements of obtaining a CCW.
My question goes like this, would the above exclude me from the 1000' law in that I meet the conditions from the exclusion? Example, would it be legal to take my dog for a walk across the street from a school so long as I do not enter their grounds/parking lot/etc? Can I drop off and pick up my teenage kid by meeting them at the sidewalk while I wait in the car for them to arrive at the car?
I know some folks are going to say "concealed means concealed" or some other nonsense but in Cali, particularly LA, and the duty to inform or report means that if I have any interaction with the police then I need to let them know. Say I witness a car accident or I am in one myself while I am dropping my kid off or walking the dog then I'd have to let them know and given the city I am in I am sure they'd love to throw the book at me to make a point so while I understand the sentiment that is just not something I am willing to risk my liberty over.
I am hopeful someone here can give me a straight answer and chop through the mud. I will admit to being dissuaded from carrying for fear I am reading it wrong, although I don't think I am.
Thoughts and TIA.