I mean, I agree about the fearmongering, but the comparison is off.
1947 was significantly safer than 2024 precisely because the USSR had tested successfully. If the US was the only country with nuclear weapons, it would have nuked the USSR, China, and a dozen other countries by now. This is how the US operates with technological advantages (when it still had them); From the air, from afar, safe on its big little island on the other side of the globe.
But today, it no longer has that advantage, and it's a dying empire, which in 1947 clearly it wasn't. Dying empires get desperate, especially after the loss of technological supremacy; all of its geopolitical rivals have hypersonics now, the US can't get one off the ground. It's been doing every desperate thing it can to extend the neocolonial party another few years. This is way more dangerous.
what? no. Government money is a direct pipe to transnational corporations and the billionaires that run it. Welfare payments are peanuts compared to it.
like trillion dollar bank bailouts, subsidies awarded through ruinous competition among jurisdictions, trillions and trillions of dollars of defense spending for which the government will invent endless wars.. like that?
What's the value provided to citizens by spending 67B on health in the USA in terms of value provided? 10B in a country where prices are not the result of insurance companies colluding with the government?
> Government money is a direct pipe to transnational corporations and the billionaires that run it. Welfare payments are peanuts compared to it.
I don't see the point in hypotheticals. You're restating the politics you've absorbed over years of consuming a certain slant of media. There's no point in that, and no point in me doing the same.
Also, while they save all the expenses on staff, meaning, gradually destroying hotel staff jobs, too.
Airbnb: all the price of a regular hotel without the staff or attention.
also strangely missing from this discussion about the supposed outrages of pricing when you round, and losing 0.1 or 0.2% in cash payments, is that credit card companies will charge that gas station is a bit over 2%. So no matter what coin you abolish, the gas station comes out on top on the cash payment, even if it's the quarter. It'd still come out on top if it was the dollar bill/coin for bills under $200, so, pretty much always.
It's more "already handled" than missing. Gas stations already often advertise a cash price and paying by credit gives you a higher price which includes the markup. It's perhaps the most commonly used type of business that bothers to do this because the margins are so thin.
I thought the opposite, at least as a first thought: Roughly two or three years ago, facebook announced their intent to integrate their messengers - so that you could send a message from your fb inbox to whatsapp, from whatsapp to instagram. And since whatsapp has E2E as a major part of their marketing, I'd think adding it to FB and IG rather than removing it from WA would be the way to go.
(though of course it's not REALLY: it harasses you to backup your messages all the freaking time, and when I say "never", as I ALWAYS do, it asks again in 2 weeks. I assume once they're backed up on Meta's servers, there goes the encryption. But that's a parlor trick and they STILL have that data, as I assume at least 80% back up anyway and the rest is mostly worn down by the constant prompting.)
That's because a single org controls all three messengers and they can develop them to converge to the same message format and to the same encryption mechanism. At the same point Signal or XMPP will use a different format and a different mechanism, making them incompatible with messages from Meta, unless a client with a private key reencrypts them.
but then, why do they not take no for an answer and keep nagging about it, and interpret "never" as "not in the next two weeks, but ask again, please!" if they don't have an interest in having these messages there?
(and no, "it's to help YOU, the hapless user! is of course never the right answer. Corporations never do things for users without an interest of their own.)
then the US would declare it part of the "rules-based order" that nobody may use guns and bullets, and then the US will use guns, bullets, missiles, and chemical weapons while expressing grave concerns about any non-allied state using as much as a musket.
1947 was significantly safer than 2024 precisely because the USSR had tested successfully. If the US was the only country with nuclear weapons, it would have nuked the USSR, China, and a dozen other countries by now. This is how the US operates with technological advantages (when it still had them); From the air, from afar, safe on its big little island on the other side of the globe.
But today, it no longer has that advantage, and it's a dying empire, which in 1947 clearly it wasn't. Dying empires get desperate, especially after the loss of technological supremacy; all of its geopolitical rivals have hypersonics now, the US can't get one off the ground. It's been doing every desperate thing it can to extend the neocolonial party another few years. This is way more dangerous.