FriendlyBeagleDog

Is this that shocking? Ocasio-Cortez seems to be the only politician left of tired milquetoast liberalism with both the public profile to sustain a campaign and demographic profile amicable to the position.

I meant security less in the armed conflict sense, more in the less vulnerable to disruption sense. It does make sense to retain a food production sector, and a manufacturing sector for important goods like pharmaceuticals - because countries are likely to prioritise themselves in times of scarcity or crisis. I agree that interdependence is good for avoiding conflict.

It's so bleak watching entire demographics of people being more-or-less openly categorised as expendable. Alerts intended to spur action in response to an impending disaster should be available to as many people as possible.

Even a selection of generic translations with a time inserted would be better than this, and it's heartwrenching that they're not even willing to put that tiny amount of effort in.

I do understand the allure of "we should make things again", and the security implications of maintaining a local manufacturing capacity and workforce - but I think people from advanced economies are incredibly myopic about what it actually looks like to develop that capacity back.

It'll be difficult for the US to compete on price with countries like China, which have a much better developed manufacturing sector and lower wages / cost of living, even with steep tariffs applied to inflate the prices of imported goods.

They'd probably have to subsidise production in the short-term, and invest heavily in capital to automate production to the greatest extent possible so as to avoid needing to ask Americans to accept lower living standards to stand a chance.

It's an effective two-party system with unfair weighting utterly colonised by some of the most well-invested in propaganda efforts in the world.

People who report that they're Republicans very frequently flit wildly on whether the country's on a good economic trajectory based on whether Republicans are empowered, seemingly completely independent of any other metric.

I guess that's what happens when you're rich enough to spend your life surrounded by sycophantic yes men who'll lap whatever you say up for proximity to money and influence.

Man has insulated himself from ever experiencing the sincere social cues you need to develop and refine your communication skills.

Even setting aside that it's so unnecessarily huge, imagine having the utter contempt for others and self-importance necessary to park up on tram lines like that.

It's honestly so wild that these types thought Trump had some cohesive master plan that would all gel together nicely.

Like he told you the whole time that tariffs was basically his whole plan on the economy, and you thought there might be something more to it? From the guy who can barely complete a sentence? Be for real.

Yes, but sometimes producing for the public domain is their job. Sponsorships, grants, and other funding instruments exist for people who do work which is committed to the public domain.

Provided that you're not throwing the excess out, it's not too bad? They're reusable but they do wear out eventually, and when that happens you can just draw from the backlog.

Alternatively you can always use them for other things - I don't keep 37 of them, but the handful I have I'm always using for stuff which isn't just groceries.

Not necessarily? You'd retain first-to-market advantages, particularly where implementation is capital-heavy - and if that's not enough you could consider an alternative approach to rewarding innovation such as having a payout or other advantage for individuals or entities which undertake significant research and development to emerge with an innovative product.

I think the idea that nobody would commit to developing anything in the absence of intellectual property law is also maybe a bit too cynical? People regularly do invest resources into developing things for the public domain.

At the very least, innovations developed with a significant amount of public funding - such as those which emerge from research universities with public funding or collaborative public-private endeavours at e.g. pharmaceutical companies - should be placed into the public domain for everybody to benefit from, and the copyright period should be substantially reduced to something more like five years.