You might disagree with the argument, but it's not completely random. From the US, we gained most of the benefits of having nukes and spooks, without having to maintain them ourselves. Since we can't trust them, we now have to decide if it's worth developing our own.
Because when everyone knows that your only play is to support the reds, then the reds themselves know that they can abuse that desperation, renege on deals with you, etc. After all, what other plays do you have?
Dropping the deal is short-term disadvantageous, but by establishing a reputation for punishing allies who don't uphold their end of a bargain, they can be more influential in the future.
May not be a very useful one, but it hardly seems bizarre. Of course I wish that fascists were less fascist! Then there would be less fascism, and I don't like fascism and want there to be less of it! Wishing doesn't do anything on its own, but it's not a strange wish to have.
I don't like that the conservative party is using provincial funds to advertise for their political views -- especially with advertisements which aren't rigorously truthful. It feels slimy, but does anyone know if this is legal?
That's not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can't pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn't create jobs or lower prices -- and raising taxes won't destroy jobs or raise prices.
The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn't say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There's also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it's $160,000 per victim. Don't get me wrong, that's not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one's image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)
Typically it does flow better, but I have a little mental stumble every time someone uses "woman" or "women" as an adjective. I know why they're doing it and I can't really fault them, it just... feels off.
Yes, but it is a problem. It's a problem that has no partisan component, which can be fixed without political grandstanding. It's also a problem which kills people: the 6% increase in car crashes it causes is a lot of easily preventable deaths.
That may be true, and I'm glad that improvements are being made, but it's not the display. It's not the sound. It's not my keyboard backlight (which got locked on maximum brightness). It's that with Linux, getting anything working requires hours of troubleshooting. Probably if I understood the system better it would only take minutes of troubleshooting, but developing those skills would take months to years. I don't want to invest that sort of effort just to write papers, check my email, take notes, do CAD, and play games.
I tried to install Linux on my new laptop, trying multiple different distros.
Many of them did not work with my 3840x2400 screen, with unreadably tiny UI
The sound did not always work
When the sound did work, I either couldn't change the volume, or figure out how to disable the speakers when I plug in headphones
Sometimes screen brightness could not be changed
In short, driver problems. So many driver problems. I was sinking too much time into it, and I was basically unable to use my computer. So I gave up and switched back to Windows. Windows has its own annoyances, and I want to use Linux... but Windows mostly works, most of the time. Linux doesn't, and I have neither the time nor the technical skills to make it work.
Skimping on security seems really stupid right now. There are probably a fair few Canadians who would like to do certain MPs harm... not to mention India has been doing political assassinations.
I'm lucky, in a sense, that I don't have to make this decision. The only viable candidates in my riding are the Conservatives and the NDP, so I can actually vote my conscience.
Then it depends on whether the future is mutable, or if we're forced into stable time loops. If time is stable, I'd get some friends. I would never speak to the time traveller directly, but I would text back-and-forth with my friends as they talk to the time traveller. When 3 hours are up, the traveller goes back in time to talk to a different friend in the same three-hour window. (If they're tired, they can travel back 12 hours and catch some sleep before the next meeting.) It would be an interestingly acausal conversation, but Objective 1 would be finding a more permanent way to bypass the three-hour limit, maybe setting up an AI that will ask good questions of the time traveller. (If they can bring a USB stick with some good AI on it, for instance). We'd also want the future version of Wikipedia, and detailed plans for whatever useful technology gets invented in the future. As well as enough almanac knowledge to get seed money for a future-tech company, and useful news items. I wouldn't ask about mounting crises like global warming, though, so that my company can do something about it -- if I base my actions on knowledge of the future, the future is set. I think.
If the future is truly mutable, though, I just resolve to send a detailed summary of our conversation back in time to a week before I schedule the traveller to come. I get a conversation summary, use it to make the conversation more productive, and then send the new summary back. Repeat until I can take over the world, build a time machine, send a large expedition back to 12,000 BC to do an industrial revolution, and then send an even larger expedition back to the early Universe. When entropy starts to become annoying, go another century before the previous expedition and just accept them as citizens. Repeat until godhood achieved.
That's not how statistics works. You can have a significant effect with a tiny effect size, or a large effect size that on analysis turns out to be insignificant.
You might disagree with the argument, but it's not completely random. From the US, we gained most of the benefits of having nukes and spooks, without having to maintain them ourselves. Since we can't trust them, we now have to decide if it's worth developing our own.