- Cars it's not about safety, they have been made worse in terms of maintenance costs, and that's where a lot of the money is made.
You need OEM parts, or you can't simply buy a piece that broke, but you need a whole module.
The trend seems to be locking crap with software.
So in a way, while they improved greatly in terms of safety, maintenance and parts it's completely absurd.
- Your counter argument are words?
Where are the concrete actions? Is Russia going to surrender their puppet and the stolen assets? Is Russia going to pay for the reparations of their destruction?
Those words mean nothing.
Do I need to grab the quote from Putin stating that no one will interfere in Syria or they will have to face Russia? (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point)
At this level of diplomacy it's actions that matter, not words. You have these guys say one thing one day, and do the opposite the other day.
- And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? Look at the Turkish support in Ukraine, or look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
- Norway is a wealthy country, and it can afford this adoption, so it's great to see people making these choices.
But EVs would need to drop in price quite significantly for a broader adoption.
- That's not what multipolarity means, at least by those leading such propaganda.
By their standards multipolarity means control ove different circles of influence without interference.
That's what Russia wants for example, they want to secure the regime by controlling nearby countries (ideally turning them into Belarus, or by threat of destruction, like Georgia and Moldova, or by annexation, like Ukraine).
China wants to control territories surrounding them as well.
So don't be fooled by multipolarity, it's just a repacked imperialism and colonialism by right, not by earned influence.
- It's like there's a new social contract that states: it's not corruption if it's done in the open.
- > The interesting and exciting thing about China and Asia in general is that it does not suffer from the diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse that the whole "west" has been subjected to for many generations now, but especially post WWII.
Hold on a second, China and Asia in general don't suffer from diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse, since when?
China doesn't even acknowledge its own Historical events, and this has been a recurring pattern of diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse. Should we even address Russia goofy propaganda of mystical creatures?
Why should it be expected that everyone shouldn't be cautious of claims coming from a place where Historical revisionism is part of their culture?
Have you even checked the rates of fraudulent paper submissions?
- > They are definitely incorrect. One pop culture way of looking at this is fairy tales. Not too long ago we used to tell children that if they went into the woods they could get eaten by people who lived there and lured children into their houses.
You're probably right that in the past there were more messed up events, which had high chance of being traumatic.
But you're forgetting the role that Perception has in that equation - from the perspective of a human, a traumatic event isn't a comparison exercise to all possible events, or to past events on previous generations.
Your subjective experience is bound to your context.
In that sense, I wouldn't be shocked if there was more trauma now from the amount of stimulus were getting throughout our life, and the volume of dramatic changes we go through, and the amount of people and chaos that comes with it.
For example, we have way more accidents, and we also have higher survival rates from accidents due to safety measures, and a advanced medical care. So, many deadly events in the past became accidents now, and by consequence, a high chance of it being a traumatic event, sometimes for the victim and the family (directly or indirectly).
Not to mention that our life styles don't even allow us to process traumatic events properly.
- The current administration wants the EU to collapse, so we're very far away from that reality.
- But if no one enforces the law on the rulling power, the law doesn't work.
- No, separation of power isn't in great shape unfortunately.
But I don't think it has collapsed yet, or you think it has?
Mine is probably free speech, it's also not in a great shape either. But without separation of powers, free speech is quick to crumble into a precarious position.
- In the end the question is: will democratic institutions hold? I think we won't know the answer until they don't.
I think it would be unprecedented in the US, and over the years the red flags have been increasing, so the signs aren't good - but not there yet.
- Also people are just lazy and will choose the path of least resistance. I'll bet that Wikipedia and other websites are affected and don't fit in that list of legitimate grievances.
- I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Didn't the Twitter algorithm change in July 2024 after Elon endorsed Trump, to increase his reach and the reach of other individuals?[0]
> Every freaking machine learning model has a bias.
You're saying this like there's no human decision behind it. As if it's an act of nature and "oh well that's how it turned out to be!", without any concern for legality, revenue, growth, user engagement, nothing matters, it's just "the algorithm doing its thing".
Every social media algorithm is tailored, and people continually modify them. Heck, Google even named their algorithm updates for search!
But let's entertain that idea of lack of agency - just because they don't have agency over the algorithm (which they do), they can still shut it down. If they can't control whether an algorithm promotes illegal stuff, or if it's being massively used by foreign agents' bot networks, then should they be running their own business?
But hey, somehow they have it figured out for advertisers! lmao
[0]https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/17/24298669/musk-trump-endo...
- Everyone knows that naming fallacies doesn't show it happened. It only shows you can name fallacies.
But you're resorting to:
- fallacy‑fallacy by assuming my argument is wrong just because you claim to see a fallacy.
- and to gish‑gallop by trying to overwhelm and make me look up your allegations of me using your list of fallacies.
Overall, it's a poor attempt to escape the argument. That's a wrap.
- Well, you're taking what I said out of context, because it was YOU who brought the conspiracy theory stating that France/EU illegitimately serves the interests of billionaires, whereas I compared it to countries such as Russia/Iran.
So don't try to spin your irrelevant bad takes on me, own up to them.
> What we are seeing...
What you're seeing is that a billionaire is being held accountable, and for some unknown reason, you don't like it. You don't represent the opinion of anyone but yourself.
- I think it's more of a problem of how you perceive these statements.
I can't speak for the other people, but in my statement, there was no gotcha or hidden meaning. But I can rephrase it: there are more costs to break into a market other than a low price. That works, but only goes so far, and will depend on the type of product.
> We live in a globalised economy. I bet if someone was setting up a very large plastic manufacturing plant in Germany, there's a very high chance they'd hire Chinese experts to help set it up, or even to run it outright.
Yes. This is confusing because you're agreeing with me.
- As I said: these decisions are made by elected officials.
If there's a conspiracy of corruption/lobbying/interests behind those countries' decisions, it's a completely different problem that is for those countries' regulators to control, and/or for the people to choose to vote for someone else.
France isn't Russia or Iran, where you have an illegitimate regime that does whatever it wants above their law and constitution.
A Conspiracy Theory doesn't give any right to the billionaire owner of the social network to be above the law.
- There are plenty of investigations regarding this, for example: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-l...
It almost feels like it's gambling, because it's a sentiment that leaks into modern collectibles, like card games.
I'm not saying people don't value collectibles, or value nostalgia, or that some of these things should be limited to niches - the reality is that I can't quite put it into words, but a lot of it seems propped up... Or it's a false game everyone is knowingly playing, like a big Ponzi scheme.
These superman copies, or the first editions of mtg, or even some modern vintage games, were never intended to be collectibles - people used them and played with them, created memories, and the production runs were really limited in comparison to modern day production runs, that make those items actually rare... Like few hundreds or thousands have survived in good condition - which is an achievement for toys, games and comics that get used a lot.
Nowadays people buy stuff with high production runs, they never even create memories with the stuff... They slab stuff into a "hermetic" container right away, and get it graded...
It just feels fake.
Again I don't doubt people see value in this stuff, I just feel like they're valuing for the wrong reasons, and I can't wrap my head around how is that even sustainable.
Who is going to value the memory of "remember when I bought 5 booster boxes and pulled card X from the pack, with gloves on, put it in a sleeve and sent it to be graded straight away? Now those were the days!"
It's like people want to compress the randomness of time and social behavior into a predictable cicle of months, with minimal effort and to extract the maximum value out of it.
Am I overthinking this?