203 karma · joined May 10, 2019
The reason the China contained it is because she is an authoritarian state. While that provides certain advantages in this situation, it comes with certain drawbacks: not being able to access many websites, inability to express your political opinion, inability to own a firearm, being tossed in a concentration camp if the government doesn't like you. This isn't a question of leadership, you're asking the government to do things it literally has no power to do, things entirely outside of the constitution.
Urban environments aren't really "nice". For all I hear about the joys of urban living, as espoused by others, I haven't enjoyed it much. Public transportation is crowded and smelly. Fat people take half of my seat (not nice to say, but I'm not sure how else to put it). Things are small, which for a taller guy like me, is pretty tough. As in, every thing is tiny. Living spaces, shops, streets. Streets often have trash strewn on them, and don't smell particularly good. I have to keep one hand on my wallet. Sometimes, hobos get aggressive. Not as much as an issue for me, but I'd hate to be a 4'9" lady. Keeping pets is hard. Cooking food is hard. I didn't have kids, but those I knew had a hard time with them. Things are very expensive. It's loud. There's a lot of traffic. Some times (all winter and some times in summer), it's bad weather for walking. I guess I shouldn't be complaining, since I at least didn't see much in the way of human feces. This is not to say there aren't up-sides. I like the food, and there are interesting people. It's also much easier to find certain things; for instance, a few major cities still have serious "maker shops" with tons of electronic components. Smaller ones or sub-urban areas often can't accommodate them, as they are in low enough demand that serious density is required.
I like sub-urban living and empty green space. I can hardly blame people for moving out, if it's viable. The above applies differently to different cities; some are better, some are worse, but all have most of these problems in the urban core. Considering how expensive it is to live in a city rather than a suburb (especially if you're talking a similar amount of land), I don't want to pay more for less.
I wish we could let every one come here and make himself successful, but I don't foresee entitlement spending ever gong any where but down. I don't take the position of limiting immigration for idealistic reasons, but because there is a limit on how many resources we have.
I'm not sure if this is more security-related, but many of the top security conferences have lots of useful stuff there.
This is not to say there aren't up-sides. I like the food, and there are interesting people. It's also much easier to find certain things; for instance, a few major cities still have serious "maker shops" with tons of electronic components. Smaller ones or sub-urban areas often can't accommodate them, as they are in low enough demand that serious density is required.
Maybe this is just NYC. I didn't live there a really long time, and I guess I might have gotten used to it? Still, I like sub-urban living and empty green space. I can hardly blame people for moving out, if it's viable.
Canada has worse broadband but better mobile [0][1]. I'd attribute this to population density: most of their population is fairly close to our border because the rest is a frozen wasteland.
Russia has worse speeds by far, and the certain things simply are not accessible due to being blocked.
No, we're not South Korea, but S. Korea is small with most people living in a very concentrated area. Again, no other nation has companies with excellent chances of setting up satellite network infrastructure, which is a good solution for a nation as big and spread-out as America.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/09/15/compari...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_...
I assume you are referring to "dead man's switch"? If so, we've had the concept of mutually assured destruction for a long time. With our radar capabilities etc. we can see bombs coming long before they hit. Plenty of time to launch our own. Same goes for the Russians.
With respect to militarizing space, the French are doing it too, and I don't hear the same issues being raised. It's better we get there before, say, China or Russia. https://www.ft.com/content/a479bcb6-a628-11e9-984c-fac8325aa...
Remind me again, which nation has produced companies with a realistic chance of delivering satellite internet to every one?
> Because we don't build that scale of project frequently in the US, when we do it, we don't do it as efficiently. A recent example would be the use of the incorrect grade of steel in San Francisco's new Chinatown subway line.
No, it's because the government doesn't do it often, because the government is slow and inefficient. Private companies can do it fine; let them do it rather than sending the work to corrupt union shops owned by some one's brother-in-law.
Issue number two: other people. Public transportation is not as nice as a car because you are not insulated from others. I can run my AC nice and high and listen to a pod cast in peace and quiet in my car, even if I've got to deal with jostling cars on the outside. In a train/bus/etc, you never know what you'll get. Half the time there's some one with music blasting, or cussing loudly. The other half they guy next to me smells awful or takes two seats because he's a land whale. If by some miracle neither of those things is true, all the seats are taken. Public transportation sucks,
I like my car, and see no personal reason to switch to a less-comfortable and less-available form of transportation for the sake of some one else's political win.
The odds that they will completely overlap are low. However, most people don't have 20. Even those who do mostly read a number of prominent sources: nyt, wapo, wsj are the big three for news these days. Most people subscribe to one, maybe two and read that. This is arguably bad for competition and bad for "indie journalism".
Also, I take issue with some of the points of view espoused by the nyt. Their news content is fairly good (if biased), but my subscription would also go to pay their editorial board. I don't want to purchase that news, because I don't want to fund its production. I wish I could buy a news-only subscription: no "lifestyle", no "fashion", no "editorial", etc. I don't want that stuff. Just news.
Serves her right, any way. You've got to be a pretty bad person to put the information of that many people at risk.