Or is this a specific criticism of a regulatory blind spot for reigning in market power? Monopolies can get away with price increases now, but they wouldn't normally?

Would an interpretation need to reject Bell's theorem to get there? Or could it not include superposition but still keep all of Bell's theorem?

I also think buying some chinos or button down shirts at these places made it a lot cheaper to get business casual work clothes as I transitioned from fast food/retail to actual internships etc. I think it's really good for young people or people turning their life around to have very low barriers to entry when it comes to "looking respectable" or fitting in with the workplace as they grow, and fast fashion helped do that for me (and some of this could be addressed by loosening dress codes if you're hiring college students/young people/whatever).

I'm definitely not an expert in the field, but I read lecture notes by Scott Aarsonson that referenced research by Microsoft that looked into nitrogen fixation specifically as a (potentially) achievable simulation with a (potentially) massive impact.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/29.pdf

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/best-lenses-for-sunstars/#The_...

Interestingly, some modern photography lenses have achieved aperture mechanisms with much rounder geometry, sometimes with near perfect circles at multiple apertures. This can result in a more desirable bokeh, at the cost of well defined sun stars.

The climate change one might be more convincing, but I actually think we've seen some real progress on this. Alternative energy is getting cheaper, there's tax incentives for installing solar panels or EV chargers in many areas, and tax incentives for buying EVs. There's certainly more we can do, and the polls were phrased to suggest that the general public thinks so too. But if the admittedly significant oil and gas lobby is trying to hold this issue back, I'm not sure how successful they've been. Finally, this isn't an actual bill or anything. Every "green" bill I've seen is opposed by conservatives based on their constituency, whether they're a red conservative from texas, or a blue conservative from west virginia. I don't know if Joe Manchin takes donations from coal companies, but he'd unquestionably support coal either way.

I think solutions to immigration/health care/climate change are generally contentious and don't have a popular consensus. Something smaller like a "simpler" tax code seems more convincing, where a small industry of tax preparation software or something lobbies to keep income taxes complicated. At the same time, many deductions are quite popular, and these are necessarily complications to the tax code. I'm just not entirely convinced that lobbying is hurting us in any meaningful way, though a stronger example or argumentation might change my mind.

These points make me consider that what you mean by "money reserves" refers not to actual currency, but to something like trade deficit. If this is the case, can/should nations make decisions about their economies and trade policies based on projections of trade deficits?