It's also important to keep in mind the original purpose of whataboutism: to use foreign actions to excuse domestic actions. New Zealand actually is a more sensible focus in some respects, because they are part of the anglosphere, and theoretically share more of our supposed values.
Or, you could cut from the overpaid executives and middle management, invest in labor savings. Also, you're ignoring that by putting money in the hands of workers, that money is sent back into the system in increased sales.
The net result is that, without cheap labor, they will take steps to reduce the labor needed that they ignored because they could just throw cheap labor at their problems.
But they'd provide the jobs without the subsidies because they have to run their business somewhere. The only reason it can be argued to "create jobs" is because they provided the sweetest bribe instead of actually being the best city to locate. Why not just outlaw such bribes, and then governments won't have to endure the problems of a prisoner's dilemma.
And let's cut the bullshit, the companies are getting a better deal than the workers already, so "jobs" as an argument can fuck right off.
I agree with your assessment, except the crap about the Dems running to the left of Sanders. There's no way in hell that'll happen, and I suspect it's more the opposite. The Trump/Russia hysteria has been used by the useless centrists to avoid actually advocating for anything remotely on the economic left.
I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.
Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.
Clinton was about as much of a McGovern as is possible. She's popular within the party and hated outside of the party. Plus, She lost to Trump, and Trump didn't even know what he was doing. If the "steps" didn't stop Clinton, then the steps HURT getting electable candidate.
Also, I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.
Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.
I gave them credit. They've moved to "less awful," a major upgrade from "OHGODOHGODKILLITWITHFIRE." They don't get to the point of actual praise until they can make it through at least a year without having to remove an account that should have never been available on an end-user product.
Yes, the direction the code is moving in is an improvement, but that's not good, that's less awful. But the fact that there were seven backdoor accounts to remove is a huge problem.
The insecure service run by Wisconsin could be reached from internet addresses based in Russia, which has become notorious for seeking to influence U.S. elections. Kentucky's was accessible from other Eastern European countries.
These could also be reached from internet addresses based in any other country, because it's facing the internet and poorly secured.
The number of people on voter rolls doesn't change anything, and meatbag impersonation is ineffective and stupidly easy to catch, which is why it's so rare. There are TONS of ACTUAL problems with our electoral system, the chief of which is that we have a system that protects the two party system, but I haven't seen the GOP ever offer a solution to a problem that exists in the real world.
I will agree that, in theory, nuclear would be optimal. Unfortunately, I feel that there is mounting evidence that we are too much uncivilized savages at this point to handle nuclear power. We're too greedy,, too petty, and too myopic to give nuclear power the kind of attention span needed for responsible usage, and irresponsible usage of nuclear power is very dangerous.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't prepare for such a scenario, I'm saying that such a scenario is going to be rare enough in Arizona that it should be treated as an edge case. Edge cases are important, but you don't design the entire system around them. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be backups, but that's the appropriate role for natural gas in this case: as a backup.
Ask yourself this. Who is going to be more CAPABLE of the technical task of effective censorship: A HUGE corporate conglomerate or a small-to-medium municipality ISP? Yes, you shouldn't blindly trust the government, but the major ISPs have shown themselves to have no ethics at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also important to keep in mind the original purpose of whataboutism: to use foreign actions to excuse domestic actions. New Zealand actually is a more sensible focus in some respects, because they are part of the anglosphere, and theoretically share more of our supposed values.
They are correct, if by "AI" they mean an RNG.
They pick the politicians out of the choices they are given in a system that limits choice.
Or, you could cut from the overpaid executives and middle management, invest in labor savings. Also, you're ignoring that by putting money in the hands of workers, that money is sent back into the system in increased sales.
The net result is that, without cheap labor, they will take steps to reduce the labor needed that they ignored because they could just throw cheap labor at their problems.
UBI is basically just compressing the range of incomes. It cost nothing on average because the average worker pays into roughly what they get out.
That's because the early symptoms of autism present around the same time as scheduled vaccines.
But they'd provide the jobs without the subsidies because they have to run their business somewhere. The only reason it can be argued to "create jobs" is because they provided the sweetest bribe instead of actually being the best city to locate. Why not just outlaw such bribes, and then governments won't have to endure the problems of a prisoner's dilemma.
And let's cut the bullshit, the companies are getting a better deal than the workers already, so "jobs" as an argument can fuck right off.
In all fairness, a lot of that was bought by Google instead of created by them, and so, someone else likely would have filled the same niche.
Of course that's the case, collaboration is one 1/3 of the work. You also have to stop and listen.
I agree with your assessment, except the crap about the Dems running to the left of Sanders. There's no way in hell that'll happen, and I suspect it's more the opposite. The Trump/Russia hysteria has been used by the useless centrists to avoid actually advocating for anything remotely on the economic left.
I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.
Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.
Clinton was about as much of a McGovern as is possible. She's popular within the party and hated outside of the party. Plus, She lost to Trump, and Trump didn't even know what he was doing. If the "steps" didn't stop Clinton, then the steps HURT getting electable candidate.
Also, I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.
Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.
Those would help as well, but corruption within the DNC is a vulnerability. If they cease to be corrupt, then these methods become ineffective.
I gave them credit. They've moved to "less awful," a major upgrade from "OHGODOHGODKILLITWITHFIRE." They don't get to the point of actual praise until they can make it through at least a year without having to remove an account that should have never been available on an end-user product.
Yes, the direction the code is moving in is an improvement, but that's not good, that's less awful. But the fact that there were seven backdoor accounts to remove is a huge problem.
No, it was called "The Emperor's New Groove."
These could also be reached from internet addresses based in any other country, because it's facing the internet and poorly secured.
The number of people on voter rolls doesn't change anything, and meatbag impersonation is ineffective and stupidly easy to catch, which is why it's so rare. There are TONS of ACTUAL problems with our electoral system, the chief of which is that we have a system that protects the two party system, but I haven't seen the GOP ever offer a solution to a problem that exists in the real world.
I will agree that, in theory, nuclear would be optimal. Unfortunately, I feel that there is mounting evidence that we are too much uncivilized savages at this point to handle nuclear power. We're too greedy,, too petty, and too myopic to give nuclear power the kind of attention span needed for responsible usage, and irresponsible usage of nuclear power is very dangerous.
Oh, a Voight-Kampff test. I can't possibly see any downsides to this...
I'm not saying that you shouldn't prepare for such a scenario, I'm saying that such a scenario is going to be rare enough in Arizona that it should be treated as an edge case. Edge cases are important, but you don't design the entire system around them. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be backups, but that's the appropriate role for natural gas in this case: as a backup.
He speaks for those that want a habitable planet.
And you think that the entire electrical grid for the state should be built around an extreme edge case?
Ask yourself this. Who is going to be more CAPABLE of the technical task of effective censorship: A HUGE corporate conglomerate or a small-to-medium municipality ISP? Yes, you shouldn't blindly trust the government, but the major ISPs have shown themselves to have no ethics at all.