no, not clear at all.. it is a system that filters. "rich people" go broke all the time, Britain too.. There are serious structural problems certainly but that does not describe them
I guess I'm not sure where you read a claim that rich people can never go broke into the original comment. They absolutely can. That's why they often - as they seem to have done here - cut side deals to protect their revenue streams at the expense of competition. There's a VP at Walmart who stands to lose a lot of money if people start buying their Pepsi elsewhere, and a VP at Pepsi who stands to lose a lot of money if their products are less visible in the nation's Walmarts, so they've agreed to cooperate and mutually reduce the risk that their orgs perform poorly.
Dynastic wealth also tends to dissipate significantly in a generation or two, as heirs fail to generate the same level of wealth and just spend it (plus it's divided).
"Under Chevron, if a judge found that the agency had made a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous congressional directive, they were obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law, effectively ending any substantive review of a challenged rule. The repeal of Chevron is a huge blow to regulators, evidenced by the fact that the decision had been cited more than 18,000 times over 40 years."
the Chevron Doctrine is new to me; it appears that the parent comment was not answering "why was it banned internationally" but rather emphasizing weakness in US procedures
All those are bold announcements by politicians. There are a lot of things to do and it takes many years in Latin America. Also there is no spare grid and electricity generation is kind of in the middle of nowhere. Good luck with constructing a datacenter in there, and then having technical employees to maintain it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those plans. But it will take 5 to 10 years while China has a 15 year headstart.
> almost a national societal resignation that "you have no privacy, get over it."
no it is not. This is parroting the helplessness you probably dislike. There are many factors at work in a complex demographic of modern America. It is worse than useless to repeat this incomplete and frankly lazy statement.
The critics weren't ever the brightest lights in the sky, but this was horribly naive even for that time. It is as if you took the whole lot of human literature, took a dump on it and honestly believe you would know better.
Well, obviously it's not the most representative example, but yes, if a country intends to kill hundreds of thousands of people, then an atomic bomb is probably the most cost-effective way, even after accounting for R&D. Moreover, if the calculus is how to win the war with the lowest number of additional lives lost, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were quite likely significantly less deadly, even when comparing just against the expected number of Japanese civilian casualties from the alternative scenario of a Normandy-like invasion of Japan.
EDIT: It's worth saying that humans have been killing each other from the dawn of humanity. Studies on both present-day and historical tribal societies generally show a significantly higher homicide rate than what we're used to seeing in even our most dangerous cities and across our biggest wars.
> if the calculus is how to win the war with the lowest number of additional lives lost, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were quite likely significantly less deadly
This is just US propaganda. These numbers come from the fact that the US was "anticipating" a ground invasion of Japan or vice versa.
Which, to be clear, was always a made-up alternative. By the time the atomic bomb was dropped, Japan had already tried to surrender multiple times, both to us and the soviets. The reality is we just wanted to drop an atomic bomb.
You are probably right that Japan were close to surrendering and had begun some signaling around it, particularly via the soviets, but my understanding is that they hadn't actually done that, and according to the sources I read, they absolutely weren't willing to unconditionally surrender and demilitarize before the bomb.
But I don't understand why you put the ground invasion plans in quotes - are you claiming that all the effort spent on Operation Downfall[0] was just a misdirection intended to fool everyone, including the high-ranking officers involved in the planning?
I don't think it was a misdirection, but I do think it was an obviously bad idea that should've never materialized, and it didn't. I'm arguing it wouldn't have materialized anyway, and if it did, it wouldn't have been necessary.
Things did work out for Japan in the long run, but I still believe a conditional surrender + no atomic bombs should have been the solution. The US was very greedy with its demands, and I think a large part of that is our history of militarism and our desire to use new weaponry. The atomic bomb was already made, and I think realistically we were just itching to use it.
the system of long-lived nicks on YNews is intended to build a mild and flexible reputation system. This is valuable for complex topics, and to notice zealots, among other things. The feeling while reading that it is a community of peers is important.
AI-LLM replies break all of these things. AI-LLM replies must be declared as such, for certain IMHO. It seems desirable to have off-page links for (inevitable) lengthy reply content.
This is an existential change for online communications. Many smart people here have predicted it and acted on it already. It is certainly trending hard for the forseeable future.
no, not clear at all.. it is a system that filters. "rich people" go broke all the time, Britain too.. There are serious structural problems certainly but that does not describe them
reply