It depends on the course. For my course, the bachelor's year included a project that was more design based, while the master's year had a project that was research based, however I ended up working with a PhD student assisting in his research project for my bachelor's.
Last cell:
What is this, a PhD for ants?
but I have yet to hear someone clearly articulate why poopoobrain over there would do something so dumb intentionally.
Because it distracts from the fact that leveraged buyouts are almost always meant to kill the business in the long run, and such distraction reduces the chance of regulation against the practice. People don't think Twitter is failing because it had $13bn of debt it could never afford, they think it's failing because Musk is a poor businessman. That isn't to say Musk is a great businessman acting like a fool, rather, he is a clown acting like a fool.
I think if Musk had made a genuine effort to buy Twitter there wouldn't have been so much debt saddled onto the business. Musk was forced to make the purchase, but the nature of the purchase has subsequently been tailored into sinking the ship. One of the first things they did was stop paying rent - if this wasn't a sign of a business doomed to failure I don't know what is. The business will die a death, and everyone it owes money to will be left fighting over the ashes.
I mean I was hoping you'd take the time to read the article and broaden your understanding, because it's fairly apparent that you haven't yet.
Yes, the point you made was completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'm glad that's established. Maybe if you were a little smarter, we could've reached that conclusion in fewer words.
It's worth giving the article a read. It compares US attacks in Iraq with Israel in Gaza, and draws comparison with the "human shield" excuse that both have been using to dismiss civilian casualties. It also goes into the US' weak interpretation of the Geneva convention and how Israeli lawyers are basically saying "they got away with it, so should we!"
The article doesn't say it was the US' fault, it says that the US paved the way.
Damn, I went into the article thinking it was biased and sensationalist, but it seems like the author was entirely on point.
Yes, public sector refers to government run entities like the post office, also anything staffed by civil servants, and to a far lesser extent businesses contracted to the state.
Publicly traded businesses do have a lot of reporting responsibilities, also the CEO is essentially obligated to pursue profits over all else on behalf of the shareholders. A privately traded business does not have these obligations. Musk made this change with the purchase of the company (but again, he did not "buy all the shares", he bought most of them, $5bn was paid by other parties compared to his ~$26bn [plus a couple bn in fees]) however Twitter as a business was always and still is private sector. This means they absolutely could have censored Trump any time they liked - or anyone else for that matter - and they still can. It's just Musk has skewed the business to one political side, and now Musk doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Even the lawsuits against him and Twitter he'll likely be able to weasle out, because it's a limited company - although I hope they do manage to make it stick, he personally made promises that the purchase was conditional upon, which he has since broken.
So, like I've said from the beginning, it has always been private sector. However, even as a private sector business, it serves as a public forum - it was always a "private business cum public forum" - but now Musk has ruined the public forum part by making it very apparently biased towards right wing extemism.
A better analogy of what Twitter was is a public house. A private sector business, but open to the public (although Twitter never had the licencing regulations that pubs have). Musk has taken over the pub and is running it into the ground, driving out the peaceful regulars in favour of unsavoury people that spill out on to the residential streets and vomit everywhere.
I never actually wanted to talk about publicly traded vs privately traded, you brought that up.
The sad thing is, even after I explained there are two definitions (public sector/private sector and publicly traded/privately traded), and after I clarified exactly which I was referring to, you still think your correction holds water.
Twitter was private sector publicly traded, then Musk took it off the public stock market. However it is and always was private sector, meaning that it's "Twitter's house" and they get to set the rules of entry. If it was public sector, then it would be obligated be open to all members of the public equally.
If he's using public money to travel (particularly if he's funnelling money to his mate's private charter business, like he did when he shipped migrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard using ringfenced Florida taxpayer money) then he absolutely does have an obligation to disclose his records.
If he wants them to be private, he can pay for them himself, or use his campaign money.
It comes up frosted now, maybe I saw it somewhere in between.
He did impale a loooooot of people though. He also had the title "Dracula", and may be the source of some of the legends about vampires.
So yeah, it's never too late to pursue your dreams, but you do still have to get off your ass and pursue the hell out of them. Also it helps if your dad is rich and powerful.