I'll believe it when they actually generate net electricity output. I don't necessarily think they're a scam per se, but given the relative resources available and difficulty even for international projects to get fusion power working, I don't suspect their efforts will be successful. Would love to be proven wrong of course, or if not for their work to at least contribute useful progress to the effort.
Realistically she's got quite a few of those, but when given a bad but not fundamentally different from what one had before option, and a make everything far worse option, and a situation that makes trying to choose a third option an exercise in futility, the choice is a no-brainer.
Funnily enough, in an actual coincidence, Hitler himself also had a nephew (well half-nephew, but still) who hated and wrote about him (to the point of joining the US military while it was at war with his uncle, even).
Because the candidates do have those responsibilities, but have shirked them. Ideally, we'd want a better voting system, that didn't mathematically garuntee that only two viable parties emerge, so that when the politicians refuse to use their power as they should, people who will may be chosen instead, but we don't have that, and changing that is a long and difficult process that only gets harder if the more authoritarian types get power anyway. If you're in a lifeboat with holes, and there are two people that have rigged things so that one of them is going to be in charge, and one wants to stop bailing out water and the other wants to scoop it back into the boat, then even though those two aren't following their responsibilities, it doesn't mean you should stop bailing the water out, because it has to get done by somebody or you drown. And if you have a say in which of the two is in charge, the guy that just wants to sit there uselessly is still the option you must pick, because at least they aren't trying to undo the progress you're making. Ideally you'd want to figure out how to undo the rigged system too, but you have to deal with the water first, lest you all drown fighting over who's in charge.
And that'd be reasonable for you to do. However, having a network choose to remove something, or cut ties with servers in the network that don't in an attempt to persuade them to remove that thing, isn't exactly the same as a government ordering a thing be removed. The former doesn't give much avenue for a malicious actor to suppress something that isn't in their interest, because they can hardly control the collective actions of users on the network, but the latter does by creating a single point of decision making on the network's content from the outside. Not that the motivations in wanting that video gone were bad, but there is an element of risk to making it possible for a government entity to remove something from a social network, even if the thing they want gone this time is something that really shouldn't be there.
The arrows are intimidating, but their true power was their magical ability to transform things. For example, in this case they have transformed a high-wing airplane into a low-wing one.
They really do get a lot more reverence today than they deserve. Like, I get most historical cultures don't stack up the best with modern moral standards applied to them, but like, based on what I understand about Sparta, if the place were somehow transplanted through history to the modern day as it's own country, it would probably end up some sanctioned pariah state out of sheer disgust for how it treats it's own citizenry and handles it's foreign diplomacy.
To be fair, most professions that would be needed to survive in an apocalypse or rebuild society, aren't things that an already functioning modern society can support everyone doing anyway. We need farmers and carpenters and such, but we don't need so many as to have openings for a majority of the population to be them, these days.
I'm not arguing that this idea in particular is necessarily a good one, just that the concept of making the service more efficient has merit. Obviously, to actually see the benefits, the idea in question has to actually succeed at making the service more efficient.
It shouldn't, though to some extent, it operating more efficiently can be a good thing if the efficiency gains can be gotten without significant detriment to service, because then more money is available for either improvements to the mail service or for other services. Profit does not impy efficiency of course, but making something more efficient can make it more profitable.
The Henry Ford of our time (except for Elon not having the mechanical skills I guess). Musk probably would take that as a compliment, but I mean it as an insult
Wait, is it really just nectar with less water content then? Could we make honey ourselves without all the bees by just collecting a bunch of nectar and evaporating off some of the water?
hypothetically, I suppose it could alternately be done by instances just federating the number of votes from their instance and only storing who voted what internally. Though then you might get issues with very easy vote manipulation if a server just says a lot of people voted a certain way without needing to make accounts to "justify" the fake votes.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they'd occupied from someone else? In any case, you're also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not "Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those", but rather "Israel's nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so."
I'm not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I'm suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone's suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they're really implying what you think they are.
CarbonIceDragon @ CarbonIceDragon @pawb.social Posts 2Comments 1,296Joined 2 yr. ago
I'll believe it when they actually generate net electricity output. I don't necessarily think they're a scam per se, but given the relative resources available and difficulty even for international projects to get fusion power working, I don't suspect their efforts will be successful. Would love to be proven wrong of course, or if not for their work to at least contribute useful progress to the effort.