As a country US can't even agree on securing rights for its own people. Raising minimum wage or universal healthcare or housing leads to lots of bad faith discourse on socialism. The wealth is instead spent on fighting wars and strong arming others. Heck even the guy who promised no wars and America First cannot get enough and attacks another country in name of "liberation" and oil. But somehow immigration has dealt damage to three generations?
> the sympathy and empathy have long since run dry
The has to be the funniest part of the whole statement. The whole point of creating an "outsider" is that you have an enemy to fight contend with and can justify your dislike by accusing them of fraud and other crimes. People who dislike "outsiders" never had sympathy or empathy for those "outsiders" so lets not pretend something has changed.
> I'm surprised no lesson the US learnt from similar overthrows in the past, but again this is Trump.
Its not Trump, its the US.
Someone always comes along trying to attack/occupy a country. Making big promises.
Years later when nothing is achieved. Someone else will come along talking about how much US is spending, taxpayers dollars being lost, failures etc.
In recent example, Afghanistan and Trump come to mind. Everyone talked about how Afghanistan was a waste of taxpayer dollars. But now here we are.
The only thing which I can say specifically about Trump is that I wouldn't be surprised if the flip towards "Venezuela was a waste of taxpayer money" happens during his administration and he comes out saying "I have never heard of Maduro".
YouTube always had a slop problem. Previously it took time, people, money and effort to create a slop channel. That’s why it was mostly run by content farms based out of Eastern Europe. For example 5 minute craft based out of Cyprus. With AI creating slop and content farming is easier than ever. Now it can be run at scale by anyone.
As such the only purpose is to make money.
YouTube has started banning some AI channels and maybe with time put serious restrictions. Or maybe not, at least not for big channels because 5 min crafts continues to exist despite producing most bizarre, outrageous and down right dangerous content. YouTube needs that sweet advertisement money.
It’s mostly content farms based out of Asia - Vietnam, India, Bangladesh etc pumping out these stuff to make a quick buck. It’s like 5 min crafts but now easier and faster due to AI and no personal overheads.
Ohh the deep rabbit hole I went on this. There are so many variations of this like using trademark toys like Labubu, Spider-Man etc. I don’t suggest anyone looking for these unless they want their short feeds to be populated with AI nonsense.
I like how in today’s world and especially when it comes to Musk things cannot be as simple as incompetence. It has to be some 4D chess move. Like a reverse Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which might be/maybe/perhaps explained by 4D chess move. It’s like 4chan leaking all over the Internet. And Musk can keep his genius legacy alive.
is it really 4D chess to imagine that a man under investigation by the federal government would desire to benefit from being given express permission to reduce force and efficacy of agencies directly threatening him?
I don't think Musk having bad faith intent shows him to be intelligent, more just greedy and selfish, but I think it's actually more irresponsible to believe that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing
That falls under “dishonest stuff companies do all the time”. Unless there are major political points to be scored by nailing him (which there may be now, don’t get me wrong), this would get a slap on the wrist. The cars do drive themselves, they have for awhile, Tesla never claimed it was perfect, they only claimed it would be perfect in the near future and musk plausibly could have (delusionally) thought this so there is no case (not saying he isn’t dishonest, though, that’s just not how the legal system works).
So I don’t think being looked at for the kind of stuff many companies do all the time explains <checks notes> infiltrating the government and personally disrupting the people investigating him, in public. If he’s worried about a financial hit, souring Tesla’s reputation as he has is obviously not worth it. If he’s worried about prosecution, surely he would be better off being nice to everyone in politics, not pissing anyone off and strongly supporting choice causes off the mainstream radar that happen to be in the interest of politicians.
So if he is doing it on principle, he just needs to be hubristic and reckless and possibly very autistic. If he is doing it to mess with the people investigating him, he needs to be outright stupid.
Hubristic and reckless (and autistic) are much, much more realistic adjectives for Musk than “outright stupid”. I know a lot of people will just assert that he is stupid, but if you yourself are sufficiently intelligent and you listen to the guy talk for a long time, you can at least tell he isn’t stupid. You can tell because he doesn’t do the rhetorical things stupid people need to do in order to mask contradictions or logical holes in what they are saying. They always do it. Even smart people sometimes do it quite a bit, like Steven Pinker for example m. Musk very rarely does it, and when he does it’s so completely obvious you can tell he’s bad at it and didn’t get where he is by being good at it.
It's not 4D chess to hurt the agencies that regulate and investigate you. It's the opposite of 4D chess. There is no secret plan, not conspiracy theory, no clever chess move.
Because majority of the tax payers who might agree with the non-funding of "everyone's project" have another problem. They are also afraid of the unknown "They" and big industries - like Big Pharma. Private institutions research can be easily dismissed as biased. But given that like you they believe even public research is politically motivated - might as well not do any research at all.
Full charge towards third world country standards.
(PS: While I see you asking for proofs from others, you haven't provided any of your own. Do you have proof to show how this is going to fix the deficit and kill the debt?)
I dont think it's a leap too far to suggest that spending less on any line item is a step towards a balanced budget ie eliminating the deficit. And once a deficit is eliminated we can begin to work on the debt. What proof is required when it's very simple maths.
Here's a reference if you need one - "“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six , result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”
There’s also good expense and bad expense. You just don’t say employees taking too much money, cut it and all good. You find what is needed and what needs to be cut. Where’s the proof that this doesn’t throw good research along with biased research?
You choosing to debate the last point and not address the issue I pointed about “let private enterprise fund research” tells me enough.
https://libredirect.github.io/
reply