> Right. He'd just get a job and rent an apartment.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting homeless people are homeless simply because they refuse to go out and get a job and an apartment. But as someone who's been homeless and someone who's a friend of people who've been homeless, a very large number of homeless people bust their asses at work. Things beyond their control go wrong and they have no social safety net to fall back on.
Elon Musk could've vacationed barefoot in Southeast Asia for 5 years and still returned to be given some executive job offer, just as many other children of rich kids do. Most people don't have that level of good fortune.
> Elon Musk could've vacationed barefoot in Southeast Asia for 5 years and still returned to be given some executive job offer, just as many other children of rich kids do.
Except that is not what happened. He started doing menial jobs in Canada. He was never given some executive job offer.
You can do any job you want and take any sort of risk when you have a rich family. It's not exactly unusual for rich kids to do menial jobs to "build character" or get some experience before rocketing off to some other venture, knowing they have essentially unlimited money behind them to absorb any mistakes they might make.
I'll be the voice of dissent here. I've heard nonstop praise for Anker online. Bought a couple keyboards and adapters from them and they all failed within a year. My wife got a mobile battery from them and that ended up dying in under a year as well. I'd be willing to write off one bad item, but I've had no good experiences and the pattern is clear to me.
It's mediocre trash. But in relative terms... the bar is so low now and the market flooded with randomly named fly-by-night operators that even mediocre trash stands out as exceptional just by existing long enough with a consistently spelled brand name to not be perceived as a fly-by-night operator.
Did you buy them off Amazon, or from a reputable reseller? I ask because Amazon mixes third party inventory together with first party inventory, so it's impossible to tell if you're getting a genuine product or a counterfeit.
>To avoid commingling, sellers have long had the option to apply a unique, seller-specific Amazon barcode — known as an FNSKU (Fulfillment Network Stock Keeping Unit) — to every product. This ensures their inventory is tracked and shipped separately.
... is that really all that was necessary all along? I can see that being a problem for, like, 10 cents worth of stuff, but a lot of the commingling complaints have been around expensive items. It's not zero cost of course, but for your average $30+ thing it doesn't seem very difficult to justify.
I feel like anker combines mediocre quality control with pretty good customer service. A lot of the praise I hear from them includes something like "it died but they replaced it for free".
FWIW, after reading a few comments below you, I discovered that their usual warranty is 18-24 months. I've got a power bank that I had assumed was out of warranty (> 1 yr) but I'm still within 18 months so back to them it will go! You might find an equally pleasant surprise.
America also has a party that always runs on the idea of small government and restoring rights to the people. Every time they get power, they do the exact opposite.
>America also has a party that always runs on the idea of small government and restoring rights to the people. Every time they get power, they do the exact opposite.
You seem to be confused. The Libertarian Party never gets any power. The closest we get is representatives like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie, who run as Republicans (which are NOT the party of small government, despite what you may have been told) while acting much more like Libertarians.
Thomas Massie in particular is famous for frequently and routinely standing up against Trump, much to Trump's chagrin.
I wonder if your statement was ironic, as the article you posted does not describe Reform as far-right?
From the article:
> In March 2024, the BBC called the party far-right but soon retracted its statement and apologised to Reform UK, writing that describing the party as far-right "fell short of our usual editorial standards".[219] Commenting on the incident, the professor of politics Tim Bale wrote that labelling Reform UK as far-right is unhelpful, and that it "causes too visceral a reaction and at the same time is too broad to be meaningful". Bale noted the importance of distinguishing between the "extreme right" and "populist radical right", and stated that parties described as far right should instead be "more precisely labelled".[220] Reform UK itself rejects the descriptor, and has threatened legal action against media using it.[221] In May 2025, Ross Clark, writing in The Spectator, argued Reform is "now a left-wing party", by attracting disillusioned Labour voters with stances on restoring welfare benefits, nationalising the steel industry with 50% of utilities and increasing government spending (including the NHS).[222]
People see that the danger will grow exponentially. Trying to fix the problems of obesity and cars now that they're deeply rooted global issues and have been for decades is hard. AI is still new. We can limit the damage before it's too late.
Maybe we should begin by waiting to see the scale of said so-called damage. Right now, there have maybe been a few incidents, but there are no real rates on "oh x people kill themselves a year from ai" and as long as x is still that, an unknown variable, it would be foolish to speed through limiting everybody for what can be just a few people.
>Trying to fix the problems _____ now that they're deeply rooted global issues and have been for decades is hard
The number of people that are already getting out of touch with AI is high. And we know that people have all kinds screwed up behaviors around things like cults. It's not hard to see that yes, AI is and will cause more problems around this.
To emphasize your point: there are literally multiple online communities of people dating and marrying corporate controlled LLM’s. This is getting out of hand. We have to deal with it.
For real though right? A bunch of nerds at openAI, Microsoft, etc. make it so a computer can approximate a person who is bordering on the sociopathic with its groveling and affirmations of the user’s brilliance, then people fall in love with it. It’s really unsettling!
First time hearing of whole language theory, and man, it sounds ridiculous. Sounds similar to the old theory that kids who aren't taught a language at all will simply speak perfect Hebrew.
I read Chinese news from China in Chinese sometimes to get a bit of language practice. It's not western media reporting that China says Okinawa isn't legitimate Japanese territory. It's Chinese state media saying Okinawa needs to be "liberated" from Japan.
Fears that China one day tries a Russian approach by saying "no way bro. We'd never try to take Georgia. Nah bro. We'd never try to take Crimea. Nah dude. We'd never try to take eastern Ukraine. Nope. We definitely aren't interested in taking Poland." aren't exactly baseless. And just like with Russia, they justify their prodding of a sovereign country as "well it's our territory" (it isn't). China already has fighter jets and ships going around the Senkaku Islands periodically. It's clear they'll take them and push further and further if they think they can get away with it.
And they will never become part of China again, ever.
They once were, and after World War II they were supposed to be handed over to the Republic of China (Nationalist government), but the Nationalists stupidly refused. Then the United States gave them to Japan as a reward.
This completely violated the post-WWII United Nations agreements. So if the UN still wants to claim any legitimacy or relevance, these places should not belong to Japan, but they will never belong to China either.
Okinawa was as much a part of China as Botswana and Argentina were. Going back centuries, they've always spoken a japonic language so your government propaganda is a strange approach for seeding justification for invasion in the future.
The Okinawans are a branch of Japanese, but the Ryukyu kingdom was tributary to the Chinese empire before being annexed by Japan in the second half of the 19th century.
Before being annexed by Japan one century and a half ago, the culture of Okinawa was much more strongly influenced by China than by Japan, which is why during the first few decades after being occupied by Japan there still were many in Okinawa who would have preferred to become a part of China instead of a part of Japan, but the new Japanese authorities have eventually succeeded to suppress any opposition.
I believe that there is no doubt that Okinawa should belong to Japan and not to China, but historically this was not so clear cut. If the Okinawans could have voted in the 19th century to whom they should belong, instead of being occupied by force, it is unknown which would have been their decision.
Therefore any comparisons with Botswana or Argentina are completely inappropriate for a kingdom that had strong ties with China for many centuries and which recognized the suzerainty of the Chinese emperor.
While for me as a foreigner, the similarities between the Ryukyuan languages and mainland Japanese are obvious and many features of shared cultural heritage with ancient Japan (Yamato) are also obvious, these were not at all obvious for the Japanese themselves, who, after occupying Okinawa tended to consider the Okinawans as foreign barbarians, so for a long time they were heavily discriminated in Japan.
This completely ignores a lot of history. Okinawa went from being a tributary (trade partner) of China to vassal state (occupied and controlled) by Japan in 1609. [1] What would be modern day Afghanistan and Thailand paid tribute to China as well, but for some reason, those are ignored with the Chinese claim to territory. It's simply "well the Republic of China's victory in WW2 means we get land from countries we traded with in the 1600s!", which is bizarre view of history. Frankly, it's nothing more than trying to seed the ground for opportunism, because it's a guarantee those same arguments will be used to say Vietnam, Thailand, and Afghanistan aren't independent if those become valuable lands in the future and they seem as easily seizable as small Okinawan islands.
After the war from 1609, Ryukyu remained officially a vassal of China, not of Japan, even if it became secretly also a vassal of the Satsuma domain from Japan (not of the Japanese state).
This dual allegiance of Ryukyu, openly to China and secretly to Satsuma allowed Ryukyu to be an intermediary in some commerce between China and Japan, which officially was forbidden.
The official occupation of Ryukyu by Japan happened only in 1872, after the Meiji Restoration.
After 1609, there was no occupation of Ryukyu by Japanese. There was only a permanent threat of military intervention from Satsuma if the Ryukyuan king would have dared to act against the demands of Satsuma, which included a tribute and unfavorable commercial relationships.
Not sure where you're getting "secretly" from since there was no secret and they were openly obedient to Japan. There's nothing outside of CCP sources, and particularly no historical sources, that could even remotely claim otherwise.
And even if you goalpost shift to the Meiji Restoration, 1872 is still well before any period where Japan was required to give up any territory as a result of WW2 imperialism.
I never said they speak Chinese or anything like that. in ancient times they were part of China’s tributary system. The Chinese tributary system explicitly allowed different places to keep their own culture and language.
It was Japan that annexed them and then systematically destroyed the local culture.
The post-WWII agreements (Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, San Francisco Peace Treaty framework) all stated that these places was to be stripped from Japan.
China is only using this historical fact now to pressure Japan on the propaganda and diplomatic level.
No Chinese person actually believes China should (or will) annex them.
All Chinese media are emphasizing that these places do not belong to Japan, not that they belong to China.
That’s the essential difference.
Tributary networks were a system of trade and diplomacy. It'd be like saying the Philippines belongs to Indonesia because they're in ASEAN. And saying Okinawa doesn't belong to Japan is the exact, 100% identical argument Russia used and continues to use to justify its brutal invasions of Georgia, Ukraine, and more and more countries. It's kind of bizarre how anyone who speaks English could assume this propaganda works, though I am making the giant leap in assuming I'm not talking to Deepseek right now.
What I’ve always wanted to emphasize is the post-World War II agreements. That should be the real focus, right? At least according to those treaties and agreements, these territories (Okinawa/Ryukyu, etc.) explicitly do not belong to Japan.
Okinawa has been part of Japan since before the Qing Dynasty even existed. Government operatives claim a lot of things, but thinking WW2 negates 400+ year old borders is truly wild and something no human not on a government payroll would make.
I'm a bit confused, would love to learn. The Potsdam agreement said that Japan controls is main islands (the ones right by the mainland) and the other minor islands (anything not right next to the main island) would be determine by the Allies later. This was signed by China and obviously has been followed.
Then the Treaty of San Francisco (which didn't involve China signing or agreement or anything) said that the Allies would revert control of Okinawa to Japan, which was the Allies choice at that point given that they were in control as stipulated by the Potsdam agreement.
What's the gap between what was said and what happened? You could argue that the WW2 agreements were unfair and didn't follow historical ownership but I'm not sure which part of the agreements themselves was directly violated.
I respect China (in fact, in this stupid timeline more than the U.S.) but China is already huge. The whole world would be a much better place if China just chilled the fuck out and would just stop harassing border countries (I know, I know, this is true for at least two quarters of planet Earth). Let them have Taiwan if that would make them shut up, but it won't. Tributary system? Allowed to keep? Pressure Japan? How much more do you want and how long will you go back in history to justify your greed for power and territory? China is trying to look nice and they succeed in many places, they are very close to something of a heavenly kingdom in my book, but this behavior always makes me ask which face is real. The power hungry bully, or the wise emperor?
I think you’ve nailed it perfectly. China definitely has its imperialist side, but the way it operates is completely different from the US style.
I often feel China’s foreign policy is kinda “dumb” in execution, but that’s just our national character at work. Take Myanmar as an example: if we were the US, it would be simple – send in troops, install a pro-China regime, done. But we’re not America, and we can’t do that without the entire Western media tearing us apart. So China’s approach is: “You guys fight it out yourselves, whoever wins, I’ll do business with them. Just don’t touch the projects and interests I already have.”
This naturally makes ordinary people in those countries dislike China – they genuinely believe China is the root cause of many of their problems, and they think importing Western systems will let them solve everything and stand on their own. In reality, that probably won’t happen most of the time. But there’s no helping it; I don’t know what a “better” Chinese foreign policy would even look like.
All I can say is China has been really lucky – thank Trump, thank Sanae Takaichi – they’ve helped us way more than people realize.
> Take Myanmar as an example: if we were the US, it would be simple – send in troops, install a pro-China regime, done. But we’re not America, and we can’t do that without the entire Western media tearing us apart.
The way to do it, is to propose a UN coalition invasion. Or to quietly provide arms to the side you like more (which never backfires).
> Generally, if they were worth fixing - they would have been fixed.
???
Basically any major software product accumulates a few issues over time. There's always a "we can fix that later" mindset and it all piles up. MacOS and Windows are both buggy messes. I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that I'd prefer they have a fix-it year and just get rid of all the issues instead of trying to rush new features out the door.
Maybe rushing out features is good for more money now, but someday there'll be a straw that breaks the camel's back and they'll need to devote a lot of time to fix things or their products will be so bad that people will move to other options.
>For iOS 27 and next year’s other major operating system updates — including macOS 27 — the company is focused on improving the software’s quality and underlying performance.
how will the poor engineers get promotions if they can not write "Launch feature X" (broken, half baked) on their promotion requests? Nobody ever got promoted for fixing bugs or keeping software useable.
Forests were clear cut in the 1800s, yeah. But plant life remained. The latter half of the 1900s moved us in a direction where nature was clear cut and paved over with a mix of rocks and petroleum, which is not very conducive to life. Then we kept moving in that direction by building massive parking lots that are empty most of the time and putting day/night cycle disrupting lights everywhere to keep those paved barren areas lit all night. Then because those dim yellow lights weren't enough, we switched to bright white lights that simulate daytime that blast all hours of the night just to really drive in the day and night cycle disruption. Also, we replaced all native plants with ugly grass. And because that grass struggles to survive, we spray the grass with poison to kill any life that may consume it and any local plants that may attempt to thrive amongst the grass. Also, we constantly mow that grass to keep it just 1 inch long and kill anything that may survived there even despite the poison and lack of biodiversity. And whenever leaves from local plants fall, which serve to replenish soil during decomposition, and act as food and shelter for insects, we get a loud ass leaf blower to put it all into a pile, put that into a garbage bag, and ship it all off to a garbage dump to ferment inside a bag for the next few hundred years so we can make a lot of methane to accelerate global warming for generations to come.
1800s folks stupidly cut down trees because they didn't know any better, but they weren't actively destroying everything and intentionally making it absolutely uninhabitable like our generation does. And now we even have bizarre concepts like HOAs, which mandate absolute and completely intentional environmental destruction for the sake of uniformity.
You are vastly overestimating the amount of land that is taken up by urban and suburban areas. Drive across the country and you will see that very little of the time you spend is in those areas. And then even that is an overestimate because those roads aren't random. They were specifically built to go through all the biggest cities on the way.
Fly over America and you'll see that it's basically all farmland
, paved over, or desert. Lots of roads have trees lining them because the space between them is hard to use. Go up in an airplane above those roads and you'll see there isn't too many truly thick forest, outside of mountains where it's hard to build things. Alternatively, pan around the world with google maps. America is only about 33% forest.
And even then, insects don't only live in forests. They live in fields, marshes, all sorts of terrain. And it's overwhelmingly tamed and sterilized.
That's a nice excuse from the executives, but it doesn't align with reality. McDonald's profits have been rising every year. [1] If those dastardly minimum wage workers and their fat paychecks were putting even the slightest bit of pressure on struggling McDonald's, the expectation would be some sort of reduction in profit. But it's the total opposite. Profits are outpacing whatever losses they're (not) experiencing from whatever supposed wage increases they have.
Depends on the industry. Within game development, I don't know a single person not using Blender. People who were big into Maya and 3DS a few years ago have pretty much all moved on.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting homeless people are homeless simply because they refuse to go out and get a job and an apartment. But as someone who's been homeless and someone who's a friend of people who've been homeless, a very large number of homeless people bust their asses at work. Things beyond their control go wrong and they have no social safety net to fall back on.
Elon Musk could've vacationed barefoot in Southeast Asia for 5 years and still returned to be given some executive job offer, just as many other children of rich kids do. Most people don't have that level of good fortune.