The argument is not incosistent, as I understand it, you just talked past each other. What the above commenter meant is that Elon was not worried about appearing a hypocrite, as a matter of shame - that is, it is not like his conscience was burdened. He worried about losing Tesla valuation, something that truly would be caused by appearing as a hypocrite to the public - so his circus was merely a calculation based on that.
You do admit it is a circus, and no official explanation holds its ground. Why do you belittle the real reason, whatever it is, by negatively branding it a conspiracy theory? The real reason for this by definition falls in the category of a "conspiracy theory", since it is not included in any official explanation.
I don't know if that's what you imply, but the correct mindset for every problem is not "Be happy it's not worse", it's "Why the f*ck is it not better and how will we make it so?".
It is well known you can't do a Good Thing if Others don't do it too because it will be inefficient and have no result globally visible. And why Others don't do it? Nobody else is doing it, duh.
There is indeed the speed of propagation of electric potential taken into account, that is, how long it takes for the input of a logical gate or a logical subsystem to produce the output (that involves the propagation of electric potential through the chip's conductors). If your clock is too fast for the size of your subsystem, the result will not be correct at the output before the next cycle begins, so your system will just be bogus.
The universe expanding is a property of space itself. And "faster than light" is only because miniscule space expansion in any quantum of space adds up with distance, e.g. 1 picometer per kilometer per second, add enough trillions of kilometers and you get that faster than light expansion. There is no mass, particle or information moving THROUGH space faster than the speed of light, which is what the said limit concerns.
Moreover, parents should own their kids since they gave birth to them. They should be legally be able to take every decision for them, and be their guardian, until they die. They gave their children birth after all.
Is there electrical energy just burnt for no purpose in fiat systems? You are talking about efficiency, not absolute value. The transactions of fiat systems are orders of magnitude more than the bitcoin chain's.
Life is struggle, and I do not mean that in a pessimist way. If someone wants to take something from you, you just have to resist. Over and over and over, forever. Your life is meant to end anyway, no reason to give up sooner than that. It is of course logical to not have the energy and time to do everything and be everywhere. But whatever you do you keep moving.
He was a RICH immigrant that made good on the American Dream. Having a truckload of money ready for you before you venture out in the world would be inspiring for anyone, believe me.
Is bailing out banks and huge corporations a left wing or a right wing thing to do? Clearly the second, judging from reality. Your second paragraph is a ridiculous tale of the right that has gotten to the minds of many. "Liberty together with the risk" only concerns non rich people. Look at all those entities getting saved when in a pinch by sweet government money, and tell me if they have liberty or not. Is there a reason EVERYONE cannot be bailed out the same way? US government just threw 3 billion and counting in a heartbeat at Ukraine but somehow a safety net for its own citizens is non feasible?
The middle eastern coworkers decided it by following Islam. Islam is not an abstract theory, it is a very detailed book. It would be good to read it. Among other things, it explicitly demands to accept the whole of it to be a true Muslim. No cherry picking what fits our spiritual needs.
That's ingenious, because everyone did not bother strip searching since they made their explicit conclusions about what was between your legs by the external appearance and behavior alone :)
Nice. Since the answer is "Nope", here comes my point: What IS the meaning of gender anyway? Shouldn't we rather call each human's "gender" their unique personality instead? Since that's what it actually is? What is the meaning of saying "My gender is woman"? What IS a woman? In the past "woman" was tied to the reproductory organ. Since it no longer is, well... let's get rid of the notion altogether. It only serves to put labels on personalities, and these labels themselves are based on ancient obsolete ideas.
Choosing who sociopath to believe is way down the road (and in my opinion not necessary in the end to "believe" anyone, you ideally have your judgement to filter out the noise and get the however little information). The step we still have not gotten past is to be able to listen to all the psychopaths in the first place. At this moment, the psychopath with the most strength near you prohibits other psychopaths from being heard at all.
Given the objectively and publicly known huge part of the US destabilizing other countries overtly and covertly, and similar stories from innumerable other powers throughout history, I would say it takes damn much energy from third parties to generate a conflict between people I would love to see a comment defending US actions, in a way that makes sense, using only its official public narrative. Every damn official point made for justification is full of holes and counter examples.
You seem to be putting a lot in my mouth on your own.
Let me ask you a question to clarify things: Is ANY gender based in ANY way on the sexual organs (and thus the biologically assigned sex) of ANY human?
If we are going to talk objective politics, the US knew what they were doing when they were steering Ukraine into a collision with Russia, back when they had a serious part in that coup, then supporting the constitution change about neutrality, and finally taking steps for Ukraine to join NATO, all the while ignoring the Nazi proliferation in Ukraine (not very much important detail, but it did show their intents, and it was not democracy). What does that make the US? What was their end goal through all this? Are their goals in Ukraine that important to lead to today? They did know what would happen, with what they did with Ukraine, with what they had done with Georgia, which they also left helpless after steering it to war, and with all of the NATO's expansion towards Russian borders. They had given an example of what happens when you play dangerous games in the doorstep of a great power, with Cuba, threatening a WW3. And they DID NOT CARE. I am not taking away blame from Putin on this specific war. I am just reminding you, the US is playing the same game, and its goals are not concerned with global peace and human wellbeing.
None other than the hypocrisy of the US and the global standards it has set will be the cause of a global conflict. They just have to keep their forces in check, while an opponent does what they have been doing for decades on a non NATO country. Objectively speaking, THAT is the best decision for world peace. And it's all on the US alone. They can do it, and no one is forcing them otherwise.
Doesn't gender lose its meaning if it's not tied to sex? As in, it is just a person's psych? I am not saying it negatively, I am all for sex having no predetermined effect on someone's behavior. But if there as many genders as there are people, it is no longer a useful term.
What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is very close to what Hitler did to Jews. The only difference is that they don't kill civilians in camps - camps do exist, the civilians are just killed through normal military operations. It is ironic that Jews, who suffered so much from the fascist regime, ended up straight showing up from all over the world to Palestine and claiming it as theirs, pushing most of the existing population out of the land and confining the others in specified areas - oh, and aggression towards the colonizers? It's called terrorism now, won't you know. And since some decades have passed, let bygones be bygones - the state of Israel has gained legitimacy through holding the land long enough.
Let's not forget Israel still bombs civilians and children.
How is THAT more justifiable than what Russia is doing, I wonder.
Invade foreign land you have no business invading? Check.
Drive much of the population away in the process? Check.
Confine the invaded populace in specified areas based on race? Russians have not done that yet in Ukraine, I acknowledge that. The first difference in the two conflicts that matters.
Kill whoever resists? Check.
Routinely bomb civilians? Check.
Does any other detail matter to not condemn the one and condemn the other? What could Russia learn from the Israeli case to make its invasion and occupation equally justifiable?
Sorry for the confusion, maybe I even answered to the wrong comment? I was answering to a comment that somehow justified the situation in Israel while at the same time saying Russian invasion is unacceptable. If it was not your comment and you did not make these claims (too lazy to check further up now) move on.
I just made a direct analogy point to point between Israel's actions and Russia's actions. I do not really believe they can be viewed in a different light, in particular Israel in a more favorable light, which I believe is something you (whoever I wanted to answer to) deduced in your comment. You can put one on one points between the Russian invasion and the Israeli colonization of Palestine, and the only real difference is that in Israel the victims were not white people.
The West is a vast place and what you say about censorship is not universal, and I very much doubt it is absent at all. Tell me about Assange or Snowden. And if you want to hear what happens in Greece (a Western country you, in another country, probably hear nothing weird about in the news apart from new austerity measures) it is like Northen Korea with capitalism, and I must struggle to think why this could be a stretch except from executing people - oh wait, that is a thing too, if you piss off the wrong people. Plus, on the censorship side, social media did ban russian sources, and governments did ban russian channels from operating.
Pointing out double standards is not futile or pointless. It exposes the true intentions and interests of those who have them. In this case, for example, the double standards of Western governments and elites show that they do not really care about the suffering of people, rather they act based on their (geopolitical? economical? general?) interests. So, in some occasions they themselves help destroy countries and have no problem with it (Not caring about people's suffering: confirmed), then an opponent creates suffering and they react (is it because of the suffering? No, they proved they do not care.). It is relevant to this, past and future situations, because it helps (those who wish to understand things, at least) shake off pretenses of the various players and see the real motives clearer. Repeat for any other section where double standards exist to get a clearer picture.
You are in essence saying that if Russians conquer the whole of Ukraine and put all Ukrainians in a few pockets, Russians are the rightful owners of the place and Ukrainian fighting back after the fact is unprovoked aggression, if enough decades pass without Russia losing control of Ukraine?
There have been various incidents of terrorizing Russian speakers, perhaps the most famous being the burning at Odessa, and in this war the Nazi sympathizers shooting any Ukrainian soldier wanting to surrender, in some contested areas such as Mariopol they may shoot citizens who attend to flee too - aside from Putin's propaganda, I recently saw a first hand account of that by a Greek speaking resident there. As much as it is not widely mentioned in Western media for obvious reasons, Nazis having a real presence in Ukraine is not in Putin's fantasy, and with a few searches you will find both many expressions of that in Ukraine and endorsement/tolerance by Ukrainian authorities. I am not standing by Putin's invasion, and in general stating and inquiring for the truth should never be seen as an expression of opinion. Peace.