On what basis would it?
Surely the government is allowed to teach what courses are run in government run schools by government employees in general. I mean, someone has to, and who else would it be?
Or if you're referring to the religion aspect of the first amendment... this seems religiously neutral?
The constitution doesn't ban bad governance, just some particularly easy to enumerate forms of it.
Olive oil?
You wouldn't live long, but compared to the other options you're listing...
This is just completely untrue. Musk founded SpaceX from nothing, there was no prior entity he acquired or invested in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX
There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike Musk, there's really no need to make up lies about him to justify having an extremely low opinion of him.
Did you know that Pepsi briefly owned 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer?
Edit: On less of a technicality, the East India Company had something like 250k troops back in 1824.
The word "potentially" is doing a lot of work there.
In many cases of piracy, the result of not pirating the work would not have been more income for the rights holder, it would have been the person just not acquiring a copy of the work at all.
Yeah, I don't know what Colorado's laws are on this in general, but even if it's technically legal it seems like a huge risk that someone is going to plausibly allege that given the specific facts denying them time off was race/religion/family status/... discrimination. It might be legal (don't know), but it's a stupid policy for a number of reasons.
The entire paper is already sub-field (AI) in industry (software engineering) specific. No stats are perfect, but I think these ones are pretty damn good for something where peoples role are pretty poorly determined in the first place. Of course you're welcome to try and find better ones.
The "pure tech" companies I've worked at have been roughly equivalent or better than these stats, but at that point I'm sampling from software engineers in general (not having worked at an AI specific company), and my sample is unlikely to be unbiased anyways.
Isn't the fact that he's repulsive sort of the whole complaint?
Republicans have traditionally been the party of "regulation doesn't work, elect me and I can prove it to you".
Maybe Musk is just taking the logical counter-part to this "regulation doesn't work, put me in charge of a heavily regulated company and I can prove it to you".