Australia can and will block your website locally. That's the pressure for you to conform to their laws. You don't have to but they don't have to let their citizens access it either. If Facebook ignored other country's laws, they would find themselves excluded entirely, such as has already happened in places like China.
The correct person to ask would be a patriotic citizen of one of those countries. People are usually biased towards their own system and have trouble even conceptualizing the motivations behind radically different ones, especially when they don't even try because they've already internalized the belief that they're automatically bad. But the people who supported those systems had their own experiences motivations and in many cases it did work out well for them compared to the alternatives or what came before.
Is a tax or regulation incentive race to the bottom really a bad thing? The residents of those jurisdictions that end up without much tax income and the externalities of the lax regulations so they would suffer and pressure their government to increase the tax and make the regulations stricter. Eventually, it should reach an equilibrium where those things are "fair" as determined by all the participants in the market. Jurisdictions would also have the ability to tax or ban imports from places they don't like. Maybe this is too much of a libertarian view? It seems to be the default state of the world though. What are the alternatives besides something oppressive like using military power to prevent other countries from taxing their citizens too little?
Did Washington residents really prefer not to have Boeing at all rather than the tax-incentivized Boing they got? Wasn't it up to them in how they voted? Sometimes they do reject it, like how New York rejected Amazon.
Yes, but that's something overhyped in social media and probably hardly even exists. It's very easy to incorrectly attribute mistreatment to something visible like sex or race. I used to have a workmate who complained everybody hated him at his previous job because he was the only American there. But then most people ended up hating him at his new job too, which was majority American staffed. People might use the obvious feature (eg. male, American, etc.) as an insult but it's often not the actual reason for the mistreatment. Bullies just pick on whatever unique characteristics their victim has as a way to belittle them and that can get misunderstood as sexism/etc.
Nevermind that group nonsense. The same phenomena occur on an individual level. People see you as fitting into some position in a social hierarchy or behavior or ability or whatever and confirm their belief whenever you do something that confirms it, while finding excuses when you do something different. "That thing he did turned out surprisingly well. But he's dumb so it must have been a fluke."
If you're only looking at racism or sexism or whatever, you're ignoring the bigger and more insidious social problems that are individual and pervade small groups and families everywhere.
When I first heard about micro-aggressions, I thought, wow, so that's what's been happing. That explains all those subtle insults, unexpected rudeness, quiet exclusions, etc. But I'm not in one of those special "marginalized" groups and being actually marginalized doesn't matter to identitarians because their politics is more important than people's welfare.
That's nonsense. People had children through the ice age! Poor struggling Africans and Indians keep having children. The people who choose not to have children seem to be contented wealthy professionals. If you're able to keep yourself alive, it's not much more work to keep children alive.
Meteorite strike or supervolcano eruption that we could have protected ourselves against but didn't because of resources spent on nuclear war prevention.
Not sure why you added the "within a few hours" qualifier or "intentionally human driven". Have you already thought of something that takes longer, is done by humans accidentally, or is natural? Is it climate change? Does that already answer your question?
Those effects won't cause extinction though because they'll diminish as the population shrinks so it'll reach some equilibrium. This is about extinction, not just lots of people dying. Nuclear winter wouldn't get less harmful the fewer people are around.
> could do things like implement communist price controls or unrestricted immigration
I wish people would stop imagining nonsense like that. They did it with Trump too - he was supposed to start a nuclear war with North Korea or something ridiculous that never happened. Judge people by their actions, not some exaggerated fantasy of the future.
Didn't ISIS do that in Iraq and Syria? Kidnapping is also a common way for armed people to get money from others in insecure countries, possibly more than they could get by directly stealing their possessions.
The scale is incredible. That's just the receiver platform suspended in the air that weighs 900 tons, not a tower. It's 100 meters "long", longer than a 747 and 3 times as heavy. It's like a steel road or rail bridge hanging in the air.
Well we also don't know what to do about suicide. Just because unsolved problems exist, doesn't mean civilization hasn't improved a lot. You would surely never expect to get to a state with no remaining social problems.
Simple solution is to not try to "solve" anything. Just be accepting of people who hold different opinions. I'm sure you would be tolerant of someone who believes Mohammed was the messenger of God. Nutty beliefs don't get much more serious than that when you consider the content of those messages.
Stop worrying. There have been popular conspiracy theories for ages. Aliens abducted by the CIA, JFK assassination, Moon landing hoax, 9/11 truthers, Illuminati, chemtrails, 5G, and the biggest one of all that you'll never escape from - religions. It's OK that people have different beliefs from you. You probably believe in some things, even dangerous things, that are obviously wrong too without realizing it.
People worrying about Qanon might just be suffering from selection and recency biases. If you don't quantify it and compare it to other conspiracy theories that you already tolerate, it might be an illusion. So much of this culture war stuff seems to be driven by those biases and complete failure to understand the scale of anything. Using instead, the frequency of news report and social media posts to estimate how popular an idea is.
It is political. It glorifies war and being the aggressor in war. I my country, it's mainly used to represent the time we tried to invade what is now Turkey and killed a bunch of the locals defending their territory. Anti-war people don't like it.
Changing the terms yea, but the practice of selling things as services, no. People are shocked at first because they couldn't imagine ink was a service but eventually, it'll become normal and nobody will get ripped off.
If you've been saying the same thing for a long time, you probably don't understand the situation or aren't listening to people's responses and adapting what you say next time. I can see this below where you're rejecting people's valid criticisms in favor of a vague ideology but without having found proven practical solutions to the practical problems. Other people aren't all idiots all the time.
What happens when future people want to use other addresses outside those rules? Tons of software will have been written only ever seeing the limited address range and will have bugs for more general addresses. Some programmers might even forget that other addresses are possible and intentionally limit what their software can handle. It could become a defacto smaller address space, making the rest of the address as complete waste forever.
Try telling your friend a URL over the phone! They were designed to be human readable but they're usually far more impossible than IPv6 addresses.
If you're going to complain about something, you should have an alternative solution in mind. Otherwise it might be possible that there really is no better way and nature just hates humans. Then your real complaint might be that humans are bad at long strings or there are too many devices on the internet or too many people in the world or whatever.
Not sure about this particular topic, but what you describe does happen. I used to be a schoolteacher and there were instances of students doing sexual dancing, wearing reavealing clothes or flirting. You're startled and make yourself ignore it. Think of their last assignment or something.
Blue won the popular vote in all 7 previous elections. It's not very useful or difficult to predict that.
If you don't like the electoral college system, go look at what it was negotiated for and also stop wanting whatever that was too. Otherwise you're just like someone saying "That other country should be part of my country! Not fair!"
In New Zealand's last election, the National Party won the popular vote but their opponent the Labour Party actually won the election and is now in power. So New Zealand isn't a democracy either?
People readily choose to let themselves be exploited. That's why minimum wages are compulsory not negotiable by employees. It's why human trafficking is illegal - the victims choose to be trafficked. It's why unions have compulsory membership. Here, individual drivers might be more concerned about losing their jobs or lifestyle (perhaps justifiably) than the consequences of the exploitation.
Organisms fill every niche on the planet. Any unusual disturbance will kill a lot of them. It doesn't matter. Why do people have this worry about anything changing ever? Nothing will go extinct. Why not be excited about the spectacular event? People are so negative and looking at the gloomy side of so much.
One party has the numbers they need because they need those numbers to be competitive in the current system and have made whatever concessions they needed to to achieve them. If the demographics changed then the parties would adapt so that again they both just barely have what they need. The parties would adapt by campaigning to different groups of voters or changing their policies to attract the other party's voters. It's a waste of resources and concessions to gain more voters than are useful for winning.
I think you're getting emotionally caught up on the idea of having less plastic. If it was safely and permanently buried, it would be no worse for the environment but cheaper than recycling or using less.
Why are you confusing plastic in the ocean with climate change? To some extent, solutions to each of the two issues exacerbate the other. There's no single right way to manage the environment. That's why nobody is doing it the way you want, because it's not "right" by all measures.