I think you're reading too much into this. They are likely legally required to hand over a list of their employees to the US government. Like, if sou really don't want them to do that, your only other option is quitting on the spot (or refusing and being let go, in case that makes a difference for things like unemployment benefits in your country).
Why would any scientist worth their salt be mad about that? Science is constantly trying to find new things that may disprove old things, that's basically half of the point (the other half is the discoveries made along the way).
There are only very few things out there where scientists are sure they will never change and for all of those we know for a fact that they cannot change, like the fundamental axioms of math.
Considering that Gen Z is usually defined as being born between the mid-late 1990s and early 2010s, I wouldn't support the first half of that statement. Everyone born in the first half of 2005 or earlier are 18, making them adults, so about half of Gen Z is adults.
Now whether this article uses that age range properly or whether it's just someone using the term to mean "young people", I have no idea.
But the premise of the article that just because someone uses technology all day makes them somehow invulnerable to scams (something that has absolutely nothing to do with how much someone uses tech) was ludicrous from the start.
That's correct, but I'm not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I'm just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn't really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker's paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn't been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I'm not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and "communism" was just catchier to say than "supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly". Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became "communism", which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled "un-american". This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn't moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of "the state will take away the stuff you own" turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I'm very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
I agree whole-heartedly. As someone who needed to learn the hard way that knowing the shortcut doesn't always help with the work, I'm very much in favor of teaching kids the proper way first.
Also, if kids need to be "fact-checking" their class, that's indicative of a whole different issue.
Because I don't think most kids have learnt even the smallest bit about proper research methodology to be able to fact-check things. If that little bit they know is enough to disprove something in class, that teacher needs a stern talking to about the bs they peddle.
That's pretty much a question of culture and the field.
In Germany, it's pretty much impossible to get into some jobs without a degree. In others, you get a higher salary for having a degree, to the point where some companies will not take you for a position because your degree makes you too expensive. In the public sector, your highest degree determines your salary scale (and most importantly where it caps out).
Not saying the system is good like that, but it is currently that way, so at the very least here, degree often corresponds to higher salary.
Wouldn't mind them either if it weren't for the aforementioned factors. And since I can hardly differentiate between male and female mosquitoes when I see one, because don't know what to look for, they all get the extermination treatment once they enter my flat.
Long answer: no, but there is some correlation between the average attention span dropping, people enjoying short form videos, and a lack of a mind for nuance which is exploited by right wing propagandists and populists, causing a rise in right wing or even far right authoritarian politicians being elected across the world. I'm not nearly educated enough in the field to make any causation claims though (edit: except the one about propaganda exploiting a lack of nuance which causes those far right politicians to be elected, that one doesn't need a whole lot of expertise to confirm).
Also the US has always been a country of two conservative parties, which could have something to do with more people being susceptible to right wing propaganda
Does she actually need Linux or is using a unixoid OS fine? A lot of the time installing homebrew (or whatever the package manager was called) on MacOS can suffice for several use cases.
Other than that, if you're not needing apple exclusive software on it, installing Linux on the Macbook can be a good option.
If you definitely want virtualization, go with VirtualBox
That depends, in Germany, the federal republic part is fairly regularly used in news when talking about international affairs, basically using it so they don't have to say Germany as often.
Most Americans think that "liberal" is someone on the left, while most European nations (as well as what little political theory I had) place them somewhere in the center, usually fiscally progressive but socially conservative.
I think you're reading too much into this. They are likely legally required to hand over a list of their employees to the US government. Like, if sou really don't want them to do that, your only other option is quitting on the spot (or refusing and being let go, in case that makes a difference for things like unemployment benefits in your country).