As typical his videos are spot on. The analogy is perfect here:
Roman Republic - there's an imperium system, to limit the power of [pro]magistrates. Caesar violates it by having an army in Italy as a proconsul.
USA - judiciary orders exist, among other things, to limit the power of the executive. Trump violates it by refusing to facilitate García's return.
I did mention other crucial red lines due to his violations of the first amendment, but this one is irreversible. And while I expect locals to try to move the river south (like he says in the video), much like people do here towards Bolsonaro or a potential successor, from the outside things are often clearer.
Remember America Lat[r]ina. I'm not even talking about Brazil [the country that I pay taxes to], but Mexico and the UPCA - they've been playing along USA for so long that they developed Stockholm Syndrome. Without USA they're turning their eyes to China, same shite but different continent.
I think that the right approach, from the British government, would be to be proactive: create laws banning book banning. And book defacement should be investigated, when it follows a pattern (as it does in this case).
Another red line? Sorry to be blunt but at this rate the constitution of his country is toilet paper. Used toilet paper.
Anyway dictatorships hate 1) insiders who see the outside, and 2) outsiders who see the inside. So both Trump+Bukele are making sure Garcia stays in the right North American potatoship, instead of the wrong one.
how can they see each other dance? I assume it’s because they’re experiencing the dance some other way, but how? (Also it’s hella dark in there, isn’t it?)
As I mentioned in another post, about the same topic, he's tying a sinking ship to another. So both can sink together.
Musk said the combined company will "build a platform that doesn't just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress."
The funniest part is that this might not be a lie - I wouldn't be surprised if Musk genuinely believed that.
...let's get real. xAI's main product is Grok, a text and image generator. Twitter is basically a blog platform for the sort of people who whine "WAAAH! TL;DR!". Merge both and you'll get what? Automated shitposting!
colloquialism - anything you wouldn't use in a higher register of the language (e.g. when speaking with a judge, or when writing to a formal-ish audience)
slang - colloquialisms allowed only in specific settings and associated primarily with a subculture
So one is a subset of the other. Some colloquialisms are not slang (e.g. EN gonna, tryna, wanna), but slang is always colloquialism (e.g. big dick energy, skibidi, bussy).
Note: that's how I use both words. But not even linguists agree on their definitions, so don't see yours as incorrect.
has more capital at its disposal to invest capturing a nascent market, created by changes in the economic landscape caused by tech?
has better chances to buy smaller businesses in other markets, so it's ready in case its main market dies tomorrow due to technological disruption?
can survive temporary losses for longer than a smaller one, while it's adapting itself?
The replacement rate is shorter than in recorded history (1) (archive link)
Data contradicting my claim would show that smaller businesses have a similar or better rate of survival in comparison with bigger businesses. Your link does not show that, it does not even compare smaller vs. bigger businesses, as it focuses solely on the S&P 500 bankruptcy over time.
Note that your link confirms what I said here, as it shows big companies being eaten by biggER ones:
Increased buyout activity beginning in the 1980s certainly had a hand in shortening that life span
Rather, the report said, there will be an increase in M&A [merger and acquisition] as more of them team up to compete with the disruptors.
“We argue that disruption is nothing new but that the speed, complexity andglobal natureof it is,”
"but the increased pace of the disruption by companies like Amazon, Alphabet and Apple [i.e. GAFAM] today is causing the trend to accelerate even more."
It also went bankrupt.
And the war totally had nothing to do with this, right. Nope, the VOC "just" went bankrupt, the UK snatching its stuff was totally irrelevant, and the VOC's fate can be totally generalised for the sake of your "ackshyually, big biz also go bankrupt, see VOC." /s
Of course you have to place it in historixal context: both in world population
If you did the maths beforehand, to know if your argument is sensible or bullshit (it's the later), you'd know that Walmart is ~twice the size of the VOC in number of workers, even when normalised for the world pop. (500M back then.)
But odds are you ain't bringing context up because the context would be relevant here; you're only grasping at straws.
and in respect to other contemporary companies
There was barely any global market back then, almost all companies would stick to their country of origin. The VOC was the anomaly, being the first multinational and being rather government-like. You got an elephant and 503499398988989387349 ants.
Nowadays a Walmart or Unilever or Alphabet or Apple or Nestlé is not an exception. Those companies seised the economic activity of the world. You got a handful of blue whales, and most ants got the DDT.
inb4 "then this shows that VOC was hueeeg for other companies lol lmao" - refer to what I said about it being extremely government-like, and fighting a literal government.
Given that you brought up exactly zero relevant counterpoints, I'm not wasting my time further with this discussion - it's simply unproductive.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
I think the coloured stuff is supposed to be the room background, not hallu.