It also doesn't help that it's completely hypocritical for the US to complain about this. How many countries' elections and political processes has the US interfered with? They overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a brutal dictator there, for one. And there's tons of stuff they've done in Latin America. The US has zero right to complain about this.
Why does Wikipedia need any "marketing" at all? Anyone who knows anything about the internet has heard of Wikipedia by now. This is like claiming that Google needs marketing for their search engine. If you haven't heard of Google Search or Wikipedia by now, no amount of marketing is going to help; you're probably not even using the internet.
I don't see how it's unrealistic to expect an extremely well-established charity organization to concentrate its efforts on its core mission and not a bunch of unnecessary BS like marketing.
It's already been established that hosting only costs them about $2M/year. A few administrators are not adding much to that. They're not spending tons of money on new development here; the Wiki software hasn't changed significantly in ages. Running the site in lots of languages doesn't cost anything except hosting space (again, accounted for in the $2M/year figure). They're not paying anyone to actually do good translations, as they rely on unpaid volunteers to do that kind of stuff.
Honestly, if they did employ a dozen or so people to do really good translations between articles in major languages, I'd be all for that. But they're not.
What they're doing is outsourcing almost all the really important work (writing/tending articles, preventing it from being hijacked by "morontards" through bad edits, etc.) to unpaid volunteers instead of paid professionals, and then hiring a bunch of people to do bullshit work for their "foundation". Wikipedia's original, core mission is good and worthy: provide a website to act as an online encyclopaedia so that people can freely learn about just about any topic imaginable, with the goal of the information being as unbiased as possible as well as being properly cited. This is truly a great thing. But these donations, by and large, aren't paying for this mission. The organization has suffered a colossal amount of "mission creep", and worse, the core functions are handled by unpaid volunteers, who frequently have their own agendas or egotistical reasons for doing the jobs they do (leading to less than biased results in the articles because someone in a position of power wants to maintain control instead of simply doing an unbiased job of editing).
I really don't see the problem with all these hacks and potential hacks. If we don't like being hacked, then maybe we should hire some competent IT people for a change.
I honestly find it annoying for the US to complain about all this hacking, when it's their own stupid fault for basically leaving the doors unlocked through their incompetence.
When thieves steal something from a place and it's found the security measures were ridiculously inadequate or non-existent, whoever's in charge of security gets the blame, rightfully. So why is it that when government and DNC computers are hacked because of lackadaisical security, nothing is said about this?
So are you saying that exposing the truth is somehow a bad thing, and that it's better to have the elections rigged by the powers-that-be (the DNC)?
I fail to see how a foreign country exposing this rigging is somehow bad. If the DNC didn't want a foreign country altering the outcome of the election, then maybe they shouldn't have been rigging things!!!
Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Exactly, so I'm not sure why you're railing against divorce here. Everyone has their reasons for taking such a drastic step, and I'm sure most people do not take that step without considering the alternatives, attempting to repair the situation, etc.
The only time I ever hear about people getting divorced on a whim as it might seem (like with a coworker of mine whose wife just moved out one day, much to his surprise), is when that couple didn't have any children and don't own a house together, and so separating is actually not very difficult, so in situations like that I actually fail to see how divorce is a bad thing at all. If two people are unhappy in a relationship, and there's no collateral damage in breaking up, why exactly should they stay together? The only real problem will be that someone will need to cough up some money for a new security deposit and pay for moving their small truck-load of belongings to a new little apartment. BFD.
When kids are involved, I've never heard of anyone taking it lightly, unless the person leaving has something wrong with them (e.g. the classic parent who decides to abandon their family situation). In that case, I still fail to see the problem; in the "old days", before divorce was acceptable, that person would simply disappear and move across the country and assume an alias, and the remaining spouse would not only be stuck with a house and kids to manage, but they'd have a real hard time getting a divorce and finding a new partner because of the crappy courts and the social stigma. At least now that spouse can get a quick divorce on grounds of abandonment, file for child support (much more likely they'll find the deadbeat these days, unless they skip the country), and then they can get back into the dating market and maybe find a new partner. I have a female friend who left her husband (but hasn't fully divorced yet, after 4 years, because of the cost of a lawyer and because the husband is contesting it), for multiple reasons, including that he was cheating on her, and worse he wanted to keep the girlfriend on the side and expected her to just put up with this. In the "old days", she'd be stuck, but today she's able to leave him and get child support.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
Not only that, but it remains to be seen how much of Trump's rhetoric was simply to get votes. It's pretty obvious that Trump wasn't religious in the slightest, and couldn't even recite a bible verse, and probably hadn't steeped foot in a church in ages, yet he cozied up with some religious leaders like Falwell and tried to claim he was a Christian during the campaign, quite obviously to assuage the religious people on the left and get their votes.
It's quite possible the anti-abortion stuff is the same, but who knows.
What? Are you saying that some guy with a holy book in his hand who claims to speak for the sky God might not be telling the truth? How could that possibly be?
However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
No problem. We'll just ban divorce, and you'll be forced to live with your bipolar nut-case ex-wife until you die (probably by suicide). How does that sound?
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one.
And how exactly is this worse than staying with someone who makes you miserable, who is reckless with family finances, etc.?
I'm sorry, but you can't magically make people be great relationship partners, and that's what the whole anti-divorce sentiment boils down to. People don't get divorced on a whim, they get divorced because they're extremely unhappy with the situation and it's the only rational alternative.
We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Again, would you prefer having your bipolar nut-case wife back?
Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
And what's your solution here? Obviously, your ex has the reverse Midas touch; anyone who marries her ends up in financial misery. Women like that aren't uncommon; they badger their husbands into satisfying their big spending habits, and the husbands end up going bankrupt. How does discouraging divorce help this? It can't. Divorce is a good thing: it keeps unfortunate men like your ex's new ex from becoming completely homeless, and letting them break free of a toxic relationship. Better yet would be to eliminate marriage altogether, because it encourages asset comingling and enables gold-diggers to ruin these men's finances.
You should be. He's not talking about obvious ads, he's talking about the fake "sponsored content" stories that aren't like the normal stories like this one which you can comment on. AdBlock etc. aren't going to block those because they're peculiar to this site and won't be covered by a generalized rule, so he's providing a new rule you can use to block them (though a responder says that it doesn't work, so YMMV).
No, it's more than that. Sports blackouts are a positive thing, because they help get sports fans off the couch and doing something else, or at least helping to break their addiction to sports by preventing them from satisfying their addiction that day so that have to change the channel to something else, likely non-sports.
Even if it has the desired effect and encourages more of them to actually purchase tickets and go see the game in person, that's a good thing too as it'll force them to get more exercise than they'd get by watching the game at home on the couch.
Exactly. Screw them. No one is forcing you to be an Evernote user, or a user of any cloud service for that matter. There's not even any kind of monopoly effect going on here; no one really *needs* Evernote, and there's a ton of competitors anyway.
People who continue to give their support to shitty companies like this is the whole reason these companies get away with their shenanigans.
The only good thing here is that their actions are being publicized here, so that interested customers can leave. We'll see if it actually makes a difference, but I doubt it. People these days seem to be dead-set on continuing to patronize companies that treat them badly, so I doubt there'll be any significant defection.
They've been soundly beaten in every area of innovation they've tried so all that's left is corporate lock-in of Windows and Office. If they continue to risk that monopoly revenue stream shareholders are not going to stand for it.
What are you talking about? How are they risking those revenue streams? It doesn't matter how many mistakes they make like this, or how awful the Windows experience becomes: users (especially businesses) simply *will not* abandon the Windows platform, no matter what. It makes zero sense for them to employ QA testers, and waste all that money on salaries, when they can just let their customers suffer with these problems instead, and enjoy having their customers continue to throw piles of money at them for this treatment.
Why should they give two shits about producing a high quality product? They can easily claim with marketing that their product *is* "high quality" even if it's not. The only thing that's important is profit, and if idiot customers continue to give them their money, this situation will not change. Microsoft is correct to do a half-ass job on its releases and updates, and let users pay the price in lost productivity and expensive support calls, so that MS can enjoy higher profits.
That's almost exactly what happened here in the US with Trump. The rural voters who feel disenfranchised because all their factory jobs and such have moved offshore voted for someone who promised to bring them back, but instead he's now installing people who are going to implement policies which will just hurt them even more, and further increase the divide between the rich and poor.
Sorry, no. Go read the 22nd Amendment. Presidents can't run for more than 2 terms, consecutive or not.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Yeah, that's one of those posts where it's almost impossible to tell if it's sarcasm or an honestly-held opinion. It doesn't help that the rabid Hillary supporters really believe everything in that post, though they usually don't spell it all out in 5 succinct sentences like that. I believe it's probably sarcasm though, as evidenced by the "It is simply her turn" line. But again, true Hillary supporters really believe that crap: they'll tell you stuff like "she's worked so hard for the last XX years for the American people", implying that it really is "her turn".
You're not "open minded" or intelligent in the least. You deny science that conflicts with your leaders' profits, you're the side filled with religionists who by definition believe in fairy tales over evidence, you're the side favored by the KKK and other white supremacists, you're the side that wants to deny people the freedom of association by working against gay rights, and you're the side who believes that nationalism and isolationism are good ideas even though this was disproved both by imperial China and the events that led to WWI in Europe.
Pro-Trump voters are easy to understand, though it's a shame that so many on the left don't. It's simple: the economic engines that powered and enabled their rural lifestyles have been drying up for decades, because of expansion of global markets and the rise of developing nations into modern manufacturing economies, forcing all the young people in their regions to flee to cities for better economic opportunities. Along with that, their "rural values" have been dying out: religion, obvious racism, etc. So now they're mad, and instead of either getting themselves an education and joining the 21st century, or at least joining civilization and becoming urban workers earning a living in servicing those who did, they're voting for regressive economic policies and ultra-wealthy people, which will only worsen the divide between the rich and the poor, and make them even worse off than before. They ended up voting for a guy who simply told them what they wanted to hear, competing against a bunch of other Republican candidates who weren't, but who's already making moves that obviously don't reflect his campaign rhetoric (though they'll mentally twist themselves into knots to deny this), and will probably end up benefiting Russia's economy more than anything else. They were aided by other conservative voters who always blindly vote Republican because they believe in oppressing the rights of women to make their own medical choices, or those who always blindly vote Republican because of gun issues, and maybe some who simply voted against Hillary because she was such an awful and corrupt candidate, as well as people who voted 3rd party for that latter reason or just stayed home. That's why Trump won.
Yeah, unfortunately the last really enjoyable Star Trek movie was #8, First Contact. And unfortunately that was the only one of the TNG movies that was really good. Insurrection actually wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that great either, and just seemed like a double-length TV episode. They should have just called it quits with ST movies a long time ago.
If he defunds climate research and fires all the government climatologists, not to mention depriving university researchers of satellite monitoring (which the move against NASA's climate research is clearly meant to do), the damage to US science will be incalculable. In four years, you'll probably see the amount of atmospheric and oceanic research dwindle.
What I'd like to know is: why are the other western nations doing such a horrible job of doing their share here? The EU alone is 50% larger than the US by population. What the fuck are they doing, sitting on their asses? And Japan all by itself has roughly half the population of the US. Why do we need US atmospheric and oceanic research anyway? If we flake out due to our obvious ineptness, why can't these other nations pick up the ball? We're not the only country that can build and launch satellites, you know.
Maybe Trump fucking everything up is exactly what the western world needs, so they stop relying on the US for everything and can become more self-sufficient. Defunding NATO or worse might be a good thing this way too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but it's too bad that Nvidia doesn't feel the same way.
It also doesn't help that it's completely hypocritical for the US to complain about this. How many countries' elections and political processes has the US interfered with? They overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a brutal dictator there, for one. And there's tons of stuff they've done in Latin America. The US has zero right to complain about this.
WTF?
Why does Wikipedia need any "marketing" at all? Anyone who knows anything about the internet has heard of Wikipedia by now. This is like claiming that Google needs marketing for their search engine. If you haven't heard of Google Search or Wikipedia by now, no amount of marketing is going to help; you're probably not even using the internet.
I don't see how it's unrealistic to expect an extremely well-established charity organization to concentrate its efforts on its core mission and not a bunch of unnecessary BS like marketing.
It's already been established that hosting only costs them about $2M/year. A few administrators are not adding much to that. They're not spending tons of money on new development here; the Wiki software hasn't changed significantly in ages. Running the site in lots of languages doesn't cost anything except hosting space (again, accounted for in the $2M/year figure). They're not paying anyone to actually do good translations, as they rely on unpaid volunteers to do that kind of stuff.
Honestly, if they did employ a dozen or so people to do really good translations between articles in major languages, I'd be all for that. But they're not.
What they're doing is outsourcing almost all the really important work (writing/tending articles, preventing it from being hijacked by "morontards" through bad edits, etc.) to unpaid volunteers instead of paid professionals, and then hiring a bunch of people to do bullshit work for their "foundation". Wikipedia's original, core mission is good and worthy: provide a website to act as an online encyclopaedia so that people can freely learn about just about any topic imaginable, with the goal of the information being as unbiased as possible as well as being properly cited. This is truly a great thing. But these donations, by and large, aren't paying for this mission. The organization has suffered a colossal amount of "mission creep", and worse, the core functions are handled by unpaid volunteers, who frequently have their own agendas or egotistical reasons for doing the jobs they do (leading to less than biased results in the articles because someone in a position of power wants to maintain control instead of simply doing an unbiased job of editing).
I really don't see the problem with all these hacks and potential hacks. If we don't like being hacked, then maybe we should hire some competent IT people for a change.
I honestly find it annoying for the US to complain about all this hacking, when it's their own stupid fault for basically leaving the doors unlocked through their incompetence.
When thieves steal something from a place and it's found the security measures were ridiculously inadequate or non-existent, whoever's in charge of security gets the blame, rightfully. So why is it that when government and DNC computers are hacked because of lackadaisical security, nothing is said about this?
So are you saying that exposing the truth is somehow a bad thing, and that it's better to have the elections rigged by the powers-that-be (the DNC)?
I fail to see how a foreign country exposing this rigging is somehow bad. If the DNC didn't want a foreign country altering the outcome of the election, then maybe they shouldn't have been rigging things!!!
Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Exactly, so I'm not sure why you're railing against divorce here. Everyone has their reasons for taking such a drastic step, and I'm sure most people do not take that step without considering the alternatives, attempting to repair the situation, etc.
The only time I ever hear about people getting divorced on a whim as it might seem (like with a coworker of mine whose wife just moved out one day, much to his surprise), is when that couple didn't have any children and don't own a house together, and so separating is actually not very difficult, so in situations like that I actually fail to see how divorce is a bad thing at all. If two people are unhappy in a relationship, and there's no collateral damage in breaking up, why exactly should they stay together? The only real problem will be that someone will need to cough up some money for a new security deposit and pay for moving their small truck-load of belongings to a new little apartment. BFD.
When kids are involved, I've never heard of anyone taking it lightly, unless the person leaving has something wrong with them (e.g. the classic parent who decides to abandon their family situation). In that case, I still fail to see the problem; in the "old days", before divorce was acceptable, that person would simply disappear and move across the country and assume an alias, and the remaining spouse would not only be stuck with a house and kids to manage, but they'd have a real hard time getting a divorce and finding a new partner because of the crappy courts and the social stigma. At least now that spouse can get a quick divorce on grounds of abandonment, file for child support (much more likely they'll find the deadbeat these days, unless they skip the country), and then they can get back into the dating market and maybe find a new partner. I have a female friend who left her husband (but hasn't fully divorced yet, after 4 years, because of the cost of a lawyer and because the husband is contesting it), for multiple reasons, including that he was cheating on her, and worse he wanted to keep the girlfriend on the side and expected her to just put up with this. In the "old days", she'd be stuck, but today she's able to leave him and get child support.
Hey, that's not funny. That's extremely insulting to dinosaurs.
We need to use genetic engineering to bring back the dinosaurs, this time with much bigger brains. Maybe they can run things better than we can.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
Not only that, but it remains to be seen how much of Trump's rhetoric was simply to get votes. It's pretty obvious that Trump wasn't religious in the slightest, and couldn't even recite a bible verse, and probably hadn't steeped foot in a church in ages, yet he cozied up with some religious leaders like Falwell and tried to claim he was a Christian during the campaign, quite obviously to assuage the religious people on the left and get their votes.
It's quite possible the anti-abortion stuff is the same, but who knows.
What? Are you saying that some guy with a holy book in his hand who claims to speak for the sky God might not be telling the truth? How could that possibly be?
However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
No problem. We'll just ban divorce, and you'll be forced to live with your bipolar nut-case ex-wife until you die (probably by suicide). How does that sound?
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one.
And how exactly is this worse than staying with someone who makes you miserable, who is reckless with family finances, etc.?
I'm sorry, but you can't magically make people be great relationship partners, and that's what the whole anti-divorce sentiment boils down to. People don't get divorced on a whim, they get divorced because they're extremely unhappy with the situation and it's the only rational alternative.
We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Again, would you prefer having your bipolar nut-case wife back?
Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
And what's your solution here? Obviously, your ex has the reverse Midas touch; anyone who marries her ends up in financial misery. Women like that aren't uncommon; they badger their husbands into satisfying their big spending habits, and the husbands end up going bankrupt. How does discouraging divorce help this? It can't. Divorce is a good thing: it keeps unfortunate men like your ex's new ex from becoming completely homeless, and letting them break free of a toxic relationship. Better yet would be to eliminate marriage altogether, because it encourages asset comingling and enables gold-diggers to ruin these men's finances.
You should be. He's not talking about obvious ads, he's talking about the fake "sponsored content" stories that aren't like the normal stories like this one which you can comment on. AdBlock etc. aren't going to block those because they're peculiar to this site and won't be covered by a generalized rule, so he's providing a new rule you can use to block them (though a responder says that it doesn't work, so YMMV).
No, it's more than that. Sports blackouts are a positive thing, because they help get sports fans off the couch and doing something else, or at least helping to break their addiction to sports by preventing them from satisfying their addiction that day so that have to change the channel to something else, likely non-sports.
Even if it has the desired effect and encourages more of them to actually purchase tickets and go see the game in person, that's a good thing too as it'll force them to get more exercise than they'd get by watching the game at home on the couch.
Exactly. Screw them. No one is forcing you to be an Evernote user, or a user of any cloud service for that matter. There's not even any kind of monopoly effect going on here; no one really *needs* Evernote, and there's a ton of competitors anyway.
People who continue to give their support to shitty companies like this is the whole reason these companies get away with their shenanigans.
The only good thing here is that their actions are being publicized here, so that interested customers can leave. We'll see if it actually makes a difference, but I doubt it. People these days seem to be dead-set on continuing to patronize companies that treat them badly, so I doubt there'll be any significant defection.
I don't have a problem with this. If you don't like it, don't use Evernote.
I don't use Evernote, so it's not a problem for me.
They've been soundly beaten in every area of innovation they've tried so all that's left is corporate lock-in of Windows and Office. If they continue to risk that monopoly revenue stream shareholders are not going to stand for it.
What are you talking about? How are they risking those revenue streams? It doesn't matter how many mistakes they make like this, or how awful the Windows experience becomes: users (especially businesses) simply *will not* abandon the Windows platform, no matter what. It makes zero sense for them to employ QA testers, and waste all that money on salaries, when they can just let their customers suffer with these problems instead, and enjoy having their customers continue to throw piles of money at them for this treatment.
Why should they give two shits about producing a high quality product? They can easily claim with marketing that their product *is* "high quality" even if it's not. The only thing that's important is profit, and if idiot customers continue to give them their money, this situation will not change. Microsoft is correct to do a half-ass job on its releases and updates, and let users pay the price in lost productivity and expensive support calls, so that MS can enjoy higher profits.
And to think these are the people who are getting paid exorbitant amounts of money to put out such shitty software.
Why shouldn't they? People happily throw their money at them for this shitty software, no matter how much that software makes their lives miserable.
This situation will never change until customers finally wise up and start voting with their feet. I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime.
That's almost exactly what happened here in the US with Trump. The rural voters who feel disenfranchised because all their factory jobs and such have moved offshore voted for someone who promised to bring them back, but instead he's now installing people who are going to implement policies which will just hurt them even more, and further increase the divide between the rich and poor.
Sorry, no. Go read the 22nd Amendment. Presidents can't run for more than 2 terms, consecutive or not.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Yeah, that's one of those posts where it's almost impossible to tell if it's sarcasm or an honestly-held opinion. It doesn't help that the rabid Hillary supporters really believe everything in that post, though they usually don't spell it all out in 5 succinct sentences like that. I believe it's probably sarcasm though, as evidenced by the "It is simply her turn" line. But again, true Hillary supporters really believe that crap: they'll tell you stuff like "she's worked so hard for the last XX years for the American people", implying that it really is "her turn".
You're not "open minded" or intelligent in the least. You deny science that conflicts with your leaders' profits, you're the side filled with religionists who by definition believe in fairy tales over evidence, you're the side favored by the KKK and other white supremacists, you're the side that wants to deny people the freedom of association by working against gay rights, and you're the side who believes that nationalism and isolationism are good ideas even though this was disproved both by imperial China and the events that led to WWI in Europe.
Pro-Trump voters are easy to understand, though it's a shame that so many on the left don't. It's simple: the economic engines that powered and enabled their rural lifestyles have been drying up for decades, because of expansion of global markets and the rise of developing nations into modern manufacturing economies, forcing all the young people in their regions to flee to cities for better economic opportunities. Along with that, their "rural values" have been dying out: religion, obvious racism, etc. So now they're mad, and instead of either getting themselves an education and joining the 21st century, or at least joining civilization and becoming urban workers earning a living in servicing those who did, they're voting for regressive economic policies and ultra-wealthy people, which will only worsen the divide between the rich and the poor, and make them even worse off than before. They ended up voting for a guy who simply told them what they wanted to hear, competing against a bunch of other Republican candidates who weren't, but who's already making moves that obviously don't reflect his campaign rhetoric (though they'll mentally twist themselves into knots to deny this), and will probably end up benefiting Russia's economy more than anything else. They were aided by other conservative voters who always blindly vote Republican because they believe in oppressing the rights of women to make their own medical choices, or those who always blindly vote Republican because of gun issues, and maybe some who simply voted against Hillary because she was such an awful and corrupt candidate, as well as people who voted 3rd party for that latter reason or just stayed home. That's why Trump won.
Yeah, unfortunately the last really enjoyable Star Trek movie was #8, First Contact. And unfortunately that was the only one of the TNG movies that was really good. Insurrection actually wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that great either, and just seemed like a double-length TV episode. They should have just called it quits with ST movies a long time ago.
If he defunds climate research and fires all the government climatologists, not to mention depriving university researchers of satellite monitoring (which the move against NASA's climate research is clearly meant to do), the damage to US science will be incalculable. In four years, you'll probably see the amount of atmospheric and oceanic research dwindle.
What I'd like to know is: why are the other western nations doing such a horrible job of doing their share here? The EU alone is 50% larger than the US by population. What the fuck are they doing, sitting on their asses? And Japan all by itself has roughly half the population of the US. Why do we need US atmospheric and oceanic research anyway? If we flake out due to our obvious ineptness, why can't these other nations pick up the ball? We're not the only country that can build and launch satellites, you know.
Maybe Trump fucking everything up is exactly what the western world needs, so they stop relying on the US for everything and can become more self-sufficient. Defunding NATO or worse might be a good thing this way too.