Career officials at the CIA have been quietly discussing that risk and how to mitigate it in the recent weeks, current and former intelligence officials previously told CNN. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier this week suggested that those discussions represented a “threat” made by disloyal government employees — rather than a clinical warning of the potential risks posed by President Donald Trump’s aggressive cost-cutting strategy — and that those involved should be penalized.

She wants to penalize people for trying to mitigate the risks caused by needlessly penalizing people?

If the dark ages were so called due to the shortage of sources, ours will be called the glare-blind age in contrast.

Careful, Menocchio.

The gist.

…gist processes form representations of an event’s semantic features rather than its surface details, the latter being a property of verbatim processes.

I read that part and also this one:

[Angela Jackson] said she wanted to see the company lead by making a more robust business case for the programmes. “They’ve made the right moves. The one step they could go further… is to really say, 'Yes it’s our values, we believe it’s the right thing to do, but it’s also an economic imperative.”

Cook’s statement about “needing to make some changes to comply”, while not indicating any immediate changes, is setting the stage for future compromise, not a principled defense of its policies.

We thank our shareholders for standing firm on this issue while we preemptively capitulate.

I wonder how this is affecting life insurance rates for insurance CEOs.

That’s like saying you can continue to do business with the guy who keeps trying to stab you, if you stay out of arm’s reach.

It’s not wrong, but it’s ignoring the underlying issue.

Is it normal for a “legislative town hall” to be organized by one party’s central committee?