matchbok3

Forcing choices is not "competition". We already have competition. People can buy any phone they want. They can use whatever AI they want.

There's nothing "fair" about this at all. It's a group of luddites in the EU who dislike how successful American companies are.

Again, the EU is stifling innovation with these backwards-looking rules. No wonder they have no innovative companies.

Slaves? Get real kid. Obviously nothing is guaranteed. But family is family, and is worth having.

You clearly are a angry, bitter person. Perhaps that is why you are alone.

Not sure what you are referring to. My point was that "traveling" is meaningless when you have a family.

The personal attack is immature. Grow up champ, you'll be happier!

That all makes total sense.

To be fair, I only realized I really wanted to kids once my wife and I started really considering it and my friends started having them.

Tourism != real life.

Or are you joking? I hope so, because it takes a certain kind of stupid to not understand the very very bad things that a shrinking population would cause.

As a dad of (soon) 3, I would say that social media/etc have raised the expectations of parenting. Keep in mind that the kids aren't the only ones growing up and learning - the parents are too. And hopefully learning from their parents too.

"Being ready" to have a child is an impossibility so you have to embrace the unknown and be ok with mistakes. Kids are resilient, and many millions have had to do with less.

It is hard to explain to 20 year olds that bragging about their trip to Europe means nothing when you are 45.

You are in the family you help create. It is not just thrust upon you. The existence of despair need not discourage others to thrive.

Corporate profits are good, they help companies make new things.

Do you think they should lose money? How would you be typing on a computer if that evil, evil company didn't make a profit?

There is a reason every communist society has failed.

Europe's "socialist" only works because they depend on the USA for military protection and tech innovation. Or oil revenues.

A pawn of consumerism? Please, please, I beg you. Detail a single communist civilization that thrived. Give me a break.

The world is actually great, you are just focused on the negatives.

Ever think that a child born today would be the one to help solve these problems you are so worried about?

What a sad, resigned way to think about the world.

Extended period? How about 5 years? 15? 25?

There is literally nothing in the world that compares to the joy of having a large, loving, family that you helped create. The day-by-day crying or trivial complaints that you are so short-sighted about simply don't matter.

I encourage you to talk to some happy families.

The world is not even close to 1% "overpopulated".

The 1% indulge? The greatest thing a person can do is raise a child and build a legacy. No class warfare or nonsense about climate change can change that.

If you want a smaller world, fine. Then give up your 401k, retirement funds, and government care in old age. Because my kids are the ones paying for 100% of that. Think of someone other than yourself.

1. Climate change is most certainly not an extinction level event. 2. I spend many days with kids. They are great. I suggest you do the same and experience the human experience. Someone had to deal with the piece of crap you were when you were 2 years old, after all. 3. You'll stop praising the lack of children when you are 80 and nobody young wants to take care of you. You will have a lonely, lonely existence.

We are letting developers dictate what housing gets built?

Are you a parody account?

Do you understand the thousands of housing regulations in every single parcel of land in the country? Please do 2 minutes of research into FAR, inclusionary zoning, height limits, setbacks, zoning, etc.

I seriously can't tell if you are some left-wing parody account or actually serious. Either way, oooof!

Nobody is butthurt, kid. I responded to a specific claim. Instead you throw around insults like a child.

Literally nobody, including myself, is claiming anyone is "better".

Again, again, again. If you still management at these companies is not a key reason for their success and are instead redundant, useless, or otherwise not important, it should be trivial for competitors to do a better job. It's not that complicated.

I am directly responding to the claims that management is useless and not needed. It's not puzzling at all.

Um, where did I mention China or Russia?

Intellectually lazy? What are you even talking about? Stay on topic, you are embarrassing yourself.

I'll take our #1 companies, #1 tech scene, #1 innovative companies and #1 stock market over.... whatever you have, any day.

We aren't raised in "fear" of anything. We are raised to reach our potential, not depend on a nanny state or the USA. (which the EU does, you conveniently omit)

Can you point to the stock markets and silicon valley, and tech leaders and military of those countries?

Oh, wait...

The American military would not exist without the economic freedoms we have.

Yeah this website is horrendous to use. What were they thinking?

The Samsung deal is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not all entirely good. Everyone at Samsung not working in chips got screwed. And those lucky few union members used their power to extract an unfair amount of money from the company. This will cause the company to lean towards other avenues in the future, potentially harming everyone else.

Why are those people getting a huge check? Not because they worked harder. Because AI came along and made their product more valuable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/27/world/asia/samsung-ai-pro...

> But a smaller union associated with workers in the consumer electronics division — which boycotted the negotiations and whose 15,000 members were excluded from the vote — accused the lead union of neglecting their interests, and decried the deal as “discriminatory.” Under the agreement, workers in the consumer electronics division are expected to get payouts that are a fraction of those of their semiconductor division peers.

Do you think Vox has ever written about how transit unions increase costs by mandating redundant workers and work against technology that could automate trains?

Do you think Box has ever written about how Detroit unions fought EVs and AVs and automation that could result in cheaper cars?

Why do you think that is?

Is Rockstar try to ban unions? Or just deciding they don't want to work with one. Those are very, very different things.

Your avoidance of answering my question provides me with more than enough knowledge about your capabilities regarding engaging in this topic in a thoughtful, intelligent manner.

That is an entirely different argument that's not particularly germane to this topic. One can agree that unions, in the past, have helped workers, and also understand that they are not always in the best interest of the general public. It's complex, but possible!

If this "management" is so incompetent and ineffective, the workers shouldn't need them, right? They should just start their own company.

Didn't think so.

This simplistic view of "management" is detrimental to a productive conversation and doesn't reflect reality.

There are countless counter examples that are obvious. Teacher's unions (hard to fire teachers, poor quality). Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc). Auto industry fighting EVs.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.

A union's job is to protect the union. Nothing else.

There are countless counter examples that are obvious. Teacher's unions (hard to fire teachers, poor quality). Transit unions (mandating 2 drivers per subway car, crazy benefits, etc). Auto industry fighting EVs.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to make such a broad statement regarding this at all.