"The Customer is always right" is for the peons. It is correct within context; customer-facing workers should be trained in helping customers feel important, and they should be giving a good-faith effort to make the customer happy.
However, the business owner has different concerns and prerogatives. I forget which (also famous) book it is in, but some other famous guy said that, "Success is being able to choose who you do business with." For many business owners, the financial freedom they get from owning their own business has more value to them than the money itself; the money is just a detail of the way that we structure business, it is not an end in itself. Many business owners want to balance between different benefits of ownership; profit, certainly, but also freedom and security. Many business owners are trying to amass wealth not because they "need more money," but because the more money they have the deeper their financial security and freedom. Others care more about their lifestyle. Others care about not having to suffer fools, and the freedom granted to them by being able to refuse to do business with some asshole.
And they're still going to insist that their employees consider the customer to always be right. After all, if they decide somebody isn't a customer, they just tell the workers that and they know instantly that the person is no longer right and needs to leave the premises.;)
He should just buy a used mercedes from a local lot, and insist on paying double. And insist on paying his mechanic double. They'll be so impressed they'll give him the level or personalized service that his condition requires.
Indeed, it is easier if you just hate the things you cannot have.;)
He doesn't need a "safe space," he has the power to make the decision he wanted to make. You seem to somewhat misunderstand the personality traits that are accused when talking pejoratively about people wanting "safe spaces." It isn't talking about empowered people successfully maintaining their preferred conditions by exercising their known prerogatives.
There are other completely different presumed negative personality traits associated with that. Theory of mind, stock up now you're running low.
And likewise, if you have to "censor yourself" to keep from being an asshat towards companies whose products you covet, you're probably a dick and the CEO should have an assistant put you on a list of people not to do business with, because risk.
He's not a customer, and they don't have power over him. Contrary to your implication, their act of not doing business with him prevents him from being a customer, and prevents them from having any power over him at all. He doesn't have to worry about anything.
Also, luxury cars are not necessities. There might not be any moral angle at all to be outraged about, because Freedom. Tesla presumably deserves Freedom as much as anybody else. They can choose. They made no demands of him; there is no retaliation for not doing what they say, or any other type of "control" tactic. There is simply them exercising a choice that is theirs to make.
Indeed, there were 1300+ other snowflakes in line! He wasn't just a special snowflake, he was supposed to be the most special snowflake. And indeed, he might have been the most special person there. Elon certainly ended up providing special treatment. Nobody else got kicked off the waiting list, he wins!
No grandpa, that was just an opossum. Nap time, take your meds.
I'm not going to scroll up to see what you were replying to, but if you have to pretend that somebody is somebody else in order to dismiss whatever they said... you probably secretly agreed with them, but wanted to say something nasty anyways.
The most ridiculous part is to be one of 1300+ people in line for a carnival ride that seats 5 and also thinking you should be one of the people that gets to ride... combined with needy complaints about sticking to a schedule. If he likes schedules, he should instantly see that nobody on a schedule should even approach the ride line or expect to get a test drive.
Why is he more deserving of a test drive? It seems to me that those who were willing to wait patiently for something they might not get to do are the ones who deserve doing it, if they get the lucky number or wait long enough.
Poetic justice is where the persons own actions come back to harm them in an unexpected way, that would not have been Just if it had happened intentionally, but was totally their own fault. It also generally requires the lack of direct justice.
In this case there is none of that. At all. There is cause, and direct effect.
Assholes of the world need to be prepared for when they encounter another asshole. If you said mean shit about him, or complained about his product, he might refuse to sell it to you. Your money just might not spend the same. If you want to be an asshole to somebody, buy you covet their product, make sure that you're an important customer and that the other guy is more greedy than asshole. If you're just a regular customer, with a larger platform to be an ass, and he's also an ass, he's going to take that battle and win it. On your chosen terms. No more name-brand cheesypoofs for you, sucker.
As a consumer my thinking is, if you don't like it, don't covet it. And if your time was important, you wouldn't be hanging out at a product launch event and complaining that you had to schmooze for 2 hours before the event started; you'd have had something better to do even if it had started on time. People who are into that stuff sleep outdoors in single file waiting to get in, if it is an interesting enough product. I'd understand being upset about a 2 hour delay if the event was "lunch, today." But a product launch?! Newsflash, that is not a serious event with a strict time schedule. Most of the people there are at work, and most of them are doing that event for their whole workday. So unless it ran late, nobody should care. I think this guy was in the same boat, but he likes to cheat and leave early because he typed out n words already. So he was mad his all-day assignment took the same amount of "all day" that it took for everybody else.
And no test drive? Dude, there is a waiting list for this product, and you were on the waiting list. Stop pretending you're special. You're not. Now you know. I'll bet all the "regular Joe" rich guys on the waiting list are really happy to see that; needy journalists don't need to be in front of them in line. Bad PR to the 99%, perhaps, but what percent of them are on the Tesla waiting list? Good PR to rich guys who are quietly letting their money sit in line for them.
Worse, the plane in question wasn't deployed as a diplomatic mission to any of the places that refused passage. They were deployed to Russia on a diplomatic mission. It would have been a violation for Russia to deny exit passage, but nobody else is implicated.
Each diplomatic officer that the Vienna Convention applies to has to be declared in advance and accepted by the host nation. It doesn't apply to anybody who the foreign nation just says is some sort of diplomat. It is only actual diplomatic staff that have been formally assigned and accepted.
For example, the Martian Ambassador to France has diplomatic immunity in France, but not in Australia. Even if there is also a Martian Embassy in Australia. Likewise, the Martian Ambassador to Australia doesn't have any immunity or right of passage in France.
If heads of State automatically had diplomatic immunity, that would lead to a new war tactic; elect Rambo and have him invade your enemy who won't be allowed to fight back. But no, treaties were not that poorly thought out in most cases.;)
... without any legal or administrative process....
There is no international government with authority to apply a "legal process." The administrative process was also the legal process on both sides of those phone calls; they were diplomatic calls, diplomatic requests. As long as the people closing the airspace are locally authorized to do so, then it is all legal. And if they actually should have said "no" under local law, it is all still legal under international law. Those are local matters. Maybe they just don't like the way President Morales conducts his diplomacy and they said yes for their own local reasons? Local politics can work that out.
It is disheartening when so many who claim that they want to support laws really don't care what they are. They neither want to establish agreed laws through a representative system, nor to follow the existing laws. They ignore the existence of the laws they dislike, the existence of process they dislike, and they assert the existence of laws they would like but that do not actually exist.
British describes things that are owned by the government of the United Kingdom whenever the context is within an era such as the modern one when all of Great Britain is united under the same sovereign power.
When reading history it is very important to understand these terms. Historical discussions will use British to describe everything on the island, or just the things from the island. Often in descriptions of battlefield movements and things the term British is used there to describe the native armies on both sides separately from the foreign armies also on the field. You can't just presume that the words all mean the same thing they would mean if the evening newsreader said them that way. Often there is a very clear, very explicit, non-ambiguous but complicated variety of semantics.
I'll give you an example. There is a battle near the border of England and Scotland. There are French fighting on the side of the Scots, and Welsh fighting with the English. Somebody says, "The Brits are winning!" What does that imply? It implies the battle is a draw, a tie, but the French are all getting slaughtered. In all the many wars between Scotland and England, both sides were British. Get over it.
"You disagreed after I contradicted you, you must be a moron."
I'm not sure your analysis really leads where you want it to. Especially if you're trying to correct somebody's American English statement, that is true in American English, with British English in which the same words are not true. They don't have to be an moron to continue disagreeing, but if somebody has to be one, you're a prime candidate.
Davey, Britain can't mean that. It isn't even available for consideration. One is an ancient term with established meaning, the other is a modern political unit. The ancient term can't be defined originally or primarily in terms of the modern term.
Or to translate that for you: Hoo dae ye say 'United Kingdom' in Scots? A dinna onerstaun. See approach proud Edward's power - Chains and Slaverie. Scots wha hae. Damned few an' they're a' deid.
Presumably most of the Irish agree.
Scotland was part of Britain long before anything was united. Unity is not a necessary element of living on the same island, and historically is not the standard state of affairs.
Wikipedia mixes different languages together under the same heading; American English, British English, even Aussie. In a case such as this, it would be expected to be British English. In British English I have no doubt that it is as wikipedia states. However, in American English it isn't true. Scotland is called a country formally, but that is simply part of the formal naming of the province of Scotland. Just as, American States would often not be considered "states" in British English.
Presumably everybody saying that Scotland isn't a country is saying so in American English, and people saying it is a country are saying it in British English.
And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
To which I reply: Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.
How would you know, you're not even a True Scotsman!
Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission, and they feel entitled to information because they're somebody important from... a different government than has control over the airspace. So they don't know if it was with permission, and they're not the people who would be told.
What I want to hear about is, why do they think an overflight affects the village councils and things that they fly over? This isn't a case of a supersonic plane bursting local tomatoes or anything. They didn't even know they should be "concerned" until somebody told them it happened. Too bad nobody pointed out to them it isn't their business to manage it.
Just imagine how the "transparency" they seek would work. The US and UK are close military allies. If every town council can have access to any information about secret US flights there, then the US would have to stop all secret activities in the UK that matter. Things that are just part of frivolous plots are schemes could still continue, of course; but anything with military importance would have to be done somewhere else. Preparing for D-Day? We'd have had to go in through Italy.
If these fools had half a clue about the subject, if they had put some serious thought into it, they would have come up with something better to ask for than to sniff around under Uncle Sam's drawers. He's not gonna pull `em down for you, give it up. And the UK's legit governing authorities are not going to interfere with their closest military ally when nothing actually happened in the UK. Of course they let us fly over whenever we want. They let us park nuclear submarines there when we're driving by, too, and all manner of airplanes with secret weapons on them. How would it work to still be military allies with a "special relationship," and yet allow town councils to make queries about secrets that don't affect them in any way?
Except those remarks came before they sabotaged a large number of devices. The details of their public accusations are highly relevant to their reputation at this very critical juncture.
I'm going with the MCP2221 for most uses. Aka CP2221. Available from choice of vendors, uses generic driver, MCU-based design.
BTW, you're not the one that gets to decide who is responsible when their driver is sabotaging devices, and they themselves claim that buying from digikey doesn't help at all. You can refuse to believe, but it doesn't recover anybody's work. I'm sure you can just return them to the distributor after you've soldered the chips onto your boards and your customers are having driver problems... right? You're basically implying that since FTDI isn't a party to your purchase of their product, then it is contract interference... what they are actually doing is therefore contract interference. I agree, I argue that above. But suing them isn't an option if you're buying a product and don't know if it will work, and it won't cause your shipped devices to suddenly start working again. What about the many companies who design a circuit, and pay a contract manufacturer to do the assembly? Your plan then is what, just sue FTDI if your customers can't use the driver? Going out of business isn't a business plan. Suing the companies that make parts you use, that isn't a business plan. If you have to worry that their behavior amounts to contract interference... then you just choose the MCP2221 and realize that it is a superior product anyway.
If I already told you I know the story, and you want to claim I don't, how would that cause me to consider what you have to say? You lack even basic theory of mind.
It is not too late to look it up. And no, don't come back and tell me. Just enrich yourself and learn some history.
The governing body of a nation is not the "culture" and should not be driving the "culture".
Nor is it trying to. It is all a bunch of hand-waving. Peruse archive.org if you want to view all the old videos the government paid to produce in the golden age of the 1950s. It is some pretty funny stuff, not just Duck and Cover. They don't even try anymore, it is progress.
Any other fake boogeymen?
Waaa, waaa, the current government isn't entirely to my liking, therefore, "death of America." No, America was never just you. I do agree there is a lack of comprehension, but it is impossible for to misunderstand you. Why is that? Because you state conclusions without even arguing for the necessary parts in between, like what the fuck the government actually did that magically prevents culture? Presumably you haven't been exposed to any non-governmental culture in years, right? No, if you don't haven't already convinced people that the country is gone, then it isn't. Fail.
If you have to go to their website to see their supposed other products, and don't find them in the lists of chips at your electronics supply distributor, that is a major clue that those parts are not successful products and are not generating substantial profit.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Customer is always right" is for the peons. It is correct within context; customer-facing workers should be trained in helping customers feel important, and they should be giving a good-faith effort to make the customer happy.
However, the business owner has different concerns and prerogatives. I forget which (also famous) book it is in, but some other famous guy said that, "Success is being able to choose who you do business with." For many business owners, the financial freedom they get from owning their own business has more value to them than the money itself; the money is just a detail of the way that we structure business, it is not an end in itself. Many business owners want to balance between different benefits of ownership; profit, certainly, but also freedom and security. Many business owners are trying to amass wealth not because they "need more money," but because the more money they have the deeper their financial security and freedom. Others care more about their lifestyle. Others care about not having to suffer fools, and the freedom granted to them by being able to refuse to do business with some asshole.
And they're still going to insist that their employees consider the customer to always be right. After all, if they decide somebody isn't a customer, they just tell the workers that and they know instantly that the person is no longer right and needs to leave the premises. ;)
He should just buy a used mercedes from a local lot, and insist on paying double. And insist on paying his mechanic double. They'll be so impressed they'll give him the level or personalized service that his condition requires.
Indeed, it is easier if you just hate the things you cannot have. ;)
He doesn't need a "safe space," he has the power to make the decision he wanted to make. You seem to somewhat misunderstand the personality traits that are accused when talking pejoratively about people wanting "safe spaces." It isn't talking about empowered people successfully maintaining their preferred conditions by exercising their known prerogatives.
There are other completely different presumed negative personality traits associated with that. Theory of mind, stock up now you're running low.
And likewise, if you have to "censor yourself" to keep from being an asshat towards companies whose products you covet, you're probably a dick and the CEO should have an assistant put you on a list of people not to do business with, because risk.
He's not a customer, and they don't have power over him. Contrary to your implication, their act of not doing business with him prevents him from being a customer, and prevents them from having any power over him at all. He doesn't have to worry about anything.
Also, luxury cars are not necessities. There might not be any moral angle at all to be outraged about, because Freedom. Tesla presumably deserves Freedom as much as anybody else. They can choose. They made no demands of him; there is no retaliation for not doing what they say, or any other type of "control" tactic. There is simply them exercising a choice that is theirs to make.
Indeed, there were 1300+ other snowflakes in line! He wasn't just a special snowflake, he was supposed to be the most special snowflake. And indeed, he might have been the most special person there. Elon certainly ended up providing special treatment. Nobody else got kicked off the waiting list, he wins!
Why do you assume he was actually rude to the company and that the company wasn't rude to him?
No assumptions needed, he blogged it.
Maybe the blogger has learned his lesson, but probably not.
At least some percent of his readers learned his lesson, though. ;)
No grandpa, that was just an opossum. Nap time, take your meds.
I'm not going to scroll up to see what you were replying to, but if you have to pretend that somebody is somebody else in order to dismiss whatever they said... you probably secretly agreed with them, but wanted to say something nasty anyways.
What an ass.
The most ridiculous part is to be one of 1300+ people in line for a carnival ride that seats 5 and also thinking you should be one of the people that gets to ride... combined with needy complaints about sticking to a schedule. If he likes schedules, he should instantly see that nobody on a schedule should even approach the ride line or expect to get a test drive.
Why is he more deserving of a test drive? It seems to me that those who were willing to wait patiently for something they might not get to do are the ones who deserve doing it, if they get the lucky number or wait long enough.
If Justice, it would be direct normal justice.
Poetic justice is where the persons own actions come back to harm them in an unexpected way, that would not have been Just if it had happened intentionally, but was totally their own fault. It also generally requires the lack of direct justice.
In this case there is none of that. At all. There is cause, and direct effect.
Assholes of the world need to be prepared for when they encounter another asshole. If you said mean shit about him, or complained about his product, he might refuse to sell it to you. Your money just might not spend the same. If you want to be an asshole to somebody, buy you covet their product, make sure that you're an important customer and that the other guy is more greedy than asshole. If you're just a regular customer, with a larger platform to be an ass, and he's also an ass, he's going to take that battle and win it. On your chosen terms. No more name-brand cheesypoofs for you, sucker.
As a consumer my thinking is, if you don't like it, don't covet it. And if your time was important, you wouldn't be hanging out at a product launch event and complaining that you had to schmooze for 2 hours before the event started; you'd have had something better to do even if it had started on time. People who are into that stuff sleep outdoors in single file waiting to get in, if it is an interesting enough product. I'd understand being upset about a 2 hour delay if the event was "lunch, today." But a product launch?! Newsflash, that is not a serious event with a strict time schedule. Most of the people there are at work, and most of them are doing that event for their whole workday. So unless it ran late, nobody should care. I think this guy was in the same boat, but he likes to cheat and leave early because he typed out n words already. So he was mad his all-day assignment took the same amount of "all day" that it took for everybody else.
And no test drive? Dude, there is a waiting list for this product, and you were on the waiting list. Stop pretending you're special. You're not. Now you know. I'll bet all the "regular Joe" rich guys on the waiting list are really happy to see that; needy journalists don't need to be in front of them in line. Bad PR to the 99%, perhaps, but what percent of them are on the Tesla waiting list? Good PR to rich guys who are quietly letting their money sit in line for them.
Worse, the plane in question wasn't deployed as a diplomatic mission to any of the places that refused passage. They were deployed to Russia on a diplomatic mission. It would have been a violation for Russia to deny exit passage, but nobody else is implicated.
Each diplomatic officer that the Vienna Convention applies to has to be declared in advance and accepted by the host nation. It doesn't apply to anybody who the foreign nation just says is some sort of diplomat. It is only actual diplomatic staff that have been formally assigned and accepted.
For example, the Martian Ambassador to France has diplomatic immunity in France, but not in Australia. Even if there is also a Martian Embassy in Australia. Likewise, the Martian Ambassador to Australia doesn't have any immunity or right of passage in France.
If heads of State automatically had diplomatic immunity, that would lead to a new war tactic; elect Rambo and have him invade your enemy who won't be allowed to fight back. But no, treaties were not that poorly thought out in most cases. ;)
... without any legal or administrative process. ...
There is no international government with authority to apply a "legal process." The administrative process was also the legal process on both sides of those phone calls; they were diplomatic calls, diplomatic requests. As long as the people closing the airspace are locally authorized to do so, then it is all legal. And if they actually should have said "no" under local law, it is all still legal under international law. Those are local matters. Maybe they just don't like the way President Morales conducts his diplomacy and they said yes for their own local reasons? Local politics can work that out.
It is disheartening when so many who claim that they want to support laws really don't care what they are. They neither want to establish agreed laws through a representative system, nor to follow the existing laws. They ignore the existence of the laws they dislike, the existence of process they dislike, and they assert the existence of laws they would like but that do not actually exist.
Newsflash: still close military allies.
You'll need to change that first, for it to end. You not feeling the love anymore? Nope, doesn't change the relationship between nations in any way.
Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.
The fact that they're playing fast and loose with the terminology on the stuff that's easy to double check here makes me question this report.
It's a bird! It's a plane! Nemo me impune lacessit!!!!
British describes things that are owned by the government of the United Kingdom whenever the context is within an era such as the modern one when all of Great Britain is united under the same sovereign power.
When reading history it is very important to understand these terms. Historical discussions will use British to describe everything on the island, or just the things from the island. Often in descriptions of battlefield movements and things the term British is used there to describe the native armies on both sides separately from the foreign armies also on the field. You can't just presume that the words all mean the same thing they would mean if the evening newsreader said them that way. Often there is a very clear, very explicit, non-ambiguous but complicated variety of semantics.
I'll give you an example. There is a battle near the border of England and Scotland. There are French fighting on the side of the Scots, and Welsh fighting with the English. Somebody says, "The Brits are winning!" What does that imply? It implies the battle is a draw, a tie, but the French are all getting slaughtered. In all the many wars between Scotland and England, both sides were British. Get over it.
"You disagreed after I contradicted you, you must be a moron."
I'm not sure your analysis really leads where you want it to. Especially if you're trying to correct somebody's American English statement, that is true in American English, with British English in which the same words are not true. They don't have to be an moron to continue disagreeing, but if somebody has to be one, you're a prime candidate.
Davey, Britain can't mean that. It isn't even available for consideration. One is an ancient term with established meaning, the other is a modern political unit. The ancient term can't be defined originally or primarily in terms of the modern term.
Or to translate that for you: Hoo dae ye say 'United Kingdom' in Scots? A dinna onerstaun. See approach proud Edward's power - Chains and Slaverie. Scots wha hae. Damned few an' they're a' deid.
Presumably most of the Irish agree.
Scotland was part of Britain long before anything was united. Unity is not a necessary element of living on the same island, and historically is not the standard state of affairs.
Wikipedia mixes different languages together under the same heading; American English, British English, even Aussie. In a case such as this, it would be expected to be British English. In British English I have no doubt that it is as wikipedia states. However, in American English it isn't true. Scotland is called a country formally, but that is simply part of the formal naming of the province of Scotland. Just as, American States would often not be considered "states" in British English.
Presumably everybody saying that Scotland isn't a country is saying so in American English, and people saying it is a country are saying it in British English.
And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
To which I reply: Scots wha hae, hae. Scots wha hae nae, hae nae.
How would you know, you're not even a True Scotsman!
Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission, and they feel entitled to information because they're somebody important from... a different government than has control over the airspace. So they don't know if it was with permission, and they're not the people who would be told.
What I want to hear about is, why do they think an overflight affects the village councils and things that they fly over? This isn't a case of a supersonic plane bursting local tomatoes or anything. They didn't even know they should be "concerned" until somebody told them it happened. Too bad nobody pointed out to them it isn't their business to manage it.
Just imagine how the "transparency" they seek would work. The US and UK are close military allies. If every town council can have access to any information about secret US flights there, then the US would have to stop all secret activities in the UK that matter. Things that are just part of frivolous plots are schemes could still continue, of course; but anything with military importance would have to be done somewhere else. Preparing for D-Day? We'd have had to go in through Italy.
If these fools had half a clue about the subject, if they had put some serious thought into it, they would have come up with something better to ask for than to sniff around under Uncle Sam's drawers. He's not gonna pull `em down for you, give it up. And the UK's legit governing authorities are not going to interfere with their closest military ally when nothing actually happened in the UK. Of course they let us fly over whenever we want. They let us park nuclear submarines there when we're driving by, too, and all manner of airplanes with secret weapons on them. How would it work to still be military allies with a "special relationship," and yet allow town councils to make queries about secrets that don't affect them in any way?
We have disagree, it is called "overrated."
Or the alternate theory, that it gives them an enhanced platform.
Except those remarks came before they sabotaged a large number of devices. The details of their public accusations are highly relevant to their reputation at this very critical juncture.
I'm going with the MCP2221 for most uses. Aka CP2221. Available from choice of vendors, uses generic driver, MCU-based design.
BTW, you're not the one that gets to decide who is responsible when their driver is sabotaging devices, and they themselves claim that buying from digikey doesn't help at all. You can refuse to believe, but it doesn't recover anybody's work. I'm sure you can just return them to the distributor after you've soldered the chips onto your boards and your customers are having driver problems... right? You're basically implying that since FTDI isn't a party to your purchase of their product, then it is contract interference... what they are actually doing is therefore contract interference. I agree, I argue that above. But suing them isn't an option if you're buying a product and don't know if it will work, and it won't cause your shipped devices to suddenly start working again. What about the many companies who design a circuit, and pay a contract manufacturer to do the assembly? Your plan then is what, just sue FTDI if your customers can't use the driver? Going out of business isn't a business plan. Suing the companies that make parts you use, that isn't a business plan. If you have to worry that their behavior amounts to contract interference... then you just choose the MCP2221 and realize that it is a superior product anyway.
If I already told you I know the story, and you want to claim I don't, how would that cause me to consider what you have to say? You lack even basic theory of mind.
It is not too late to look it up. And no, don't come back and tell me. Just enrich yourself and learn some history.
The governing body of a nation is not the "culture" and should not be driving the "culture".
Nor is it trying to. It is all a bunch of hand-waving. Peruse archive.org if you want to view all the old videos the government paid to produce in the golden age of the 1950s. It is some pretty funny stuff, not just Duck and Cover. They don't even try anymore, it is progress.
Any other fake boogeymen?
Waaa, waaa, the current government isn't entirely to my liking, therefore, "death of America." No, America was never just you. I do agree there is a lack of comprehension, but it is impossible for to misunderstand you. Why is that? Because you state conclusions without even arguing for the necessary parts in between, like what the fuck the government actually did that magically prevents culture? Presumably you haven't been exposed to any non-governmental culture in years, right? No, if you don't haven't already convinced people that the country is gone, then it isn't. Fail.
The 1950s might not have even been a golden age.
If you have to go to their website to see their supposed other products, and don't find them in the lists of chips at your electronics supply distributor, that is a major clue that those parts are not successful products and are not generating substantial profit.