nova_ad_vitum @ nova_ad_vitum @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

1,061

Joined

2 yr. ago

If they removed that rule you would instantly realize why it was there in the first place.

Just so you know, we can tell you don't know what any of that means.

Trump cannot drop out. As long as he's alive, he's running.

A replacement won't have his cult following. But I agree, for his idiotic movement to die he needs to be on the ballot and he needs to lose.

Despite how much they go on about how nuanced and special their views are, libertarians will find a way to vote GOP like they always do.

It has about the same capabilities as a normal phone , is better in a a few niche uses, but is much more fragile and costs double. What, are you not sold?

Because most Americans support it.

No he's not.

We're nearly at the point where Dems need to start running billboard ads like "your vote is yours and yours alone. No one can tell who you voted for".

This empty-brained chud will 100 percent vote for Trump in November.

Why are you like this

Yes

Take your meds.

America has a cultural sickness. 2016 revealed that well enough for anyone who was still in doubt about it. And it's not drag queens.

The wise thing is to not offer perpetual licenses in the first place. You can't predict the state of your business in 10 years let alone beyond that. Why make commitments that? Marketing of course. So if they're going to raise capital that way (by one-time revenue from sales of perpetual licenses) then they can't just decide that perpetual doesn't mean perpetual anymore. All in all this will come down to a legal duel between expensive legal teams.

Some people are able to understand context.

Given the state of Xitter, I would argue that his control of Starlink is significantly more dangerous.

You couldn't even refute those idiotic points properly.

My brother in Christ, they invented paper, fireworks, and the compass.

True. And irrelevant.

Because they developed more efficient engineering techniques and more advanced methods of industrial scale production. In the same way Japan ate the American auto industry's lunch during the 80s and 90s by investing heavily in industry and education, China is flooding the zone with talented professionals and capital improvement projects.

And because the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing their auto industry in order to gain market share works wide. Pros for us: if we can buy these cars, the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them for our consumers. Cons for us: without equivalent subsidies domestic car companies can't possibly compete. There are genuine issues of trade fairness in play here.

The Chinese middle class is the largest in the world.

Relevant only if the Chinese middle class is who is working in those car factories. Is that the case?

I'm not even saying the tarrifs are good or bad. If they're explicitly time boxed and our governments are able to stick to that deal, then they could be good. But in general tarrifs on EVs during a climate crisis driven by carbon emissions is explicitly counterproductive.

It seems to me, all the bag holders should have grounds to sue them, I'm sure atleast a few of them will.

Sure but they'll have to balance that probably legitimate cause if action with the fact that they'll likely get death threats from cult members for filing the suit.

Assuming that election workers have to have a side is peak American.