You don’t pull out and kill the judge in a patent dispute is become the US federal government has a monopoly on violence here.
Who has an international monopoly on violence? That would be the US which makes them the judge in this case.
Yes we can just do things and there is no one that can stop us.
And spare me….but but but there are exceptions to the US having a monopoly on global violence. Yes I know it’s not a 100% true it’s only 80% true. We can bomb Israel tomorrow if they disobey us. We can cause Iranian population collapse if we want to.
I have no problem if you move to China.
Opt-out
4d ago
People like you make me want to just kill every Palestinian and Iranian to prove a point we won because we can.
Iranian Nukes are pushed back a decade minimum. We can bomb then again in the future because easily because their air defenses don’t exists anymore. Their conventional military is degraded.
You are setting the win conditions to Iranian statehood or turned into glass. We don’t want that.
Opt-out
4d ago
We basically won the war so we won’t agree. Their leaders are dead. All aims were not achieved like complete regime change but the reason we failed at that is primarily domestic US politics and an unwillingness to cause a lot of Iranian civilian deaths.
Whether the War was worth it is a much different question than whether the US is in charge.
Opt-out
4d ago
Lipstick on a pig stuff. Yes Trump ignores the genuflecting to Europe etc to make them feel good that their opinion matters. But realistically the US opinion has been all that matters for decades.
Opt-out
5d ago
“ The assumption that any decision made by the US is law, and that everyone else will follow regardless of whether they were present at negotiations or not.”
- This has been 90% of international law for decades. The US decides and everyone else has to follow the US decision.
I don’t agree with your Ukraine point. The US decided they didn’t want to pay for Ukraine because it’s not America first and largely not a US interests. The Trump administration has been consistent in wanting Europe to spend more on their military. My understanding of the MAGA position is MAGA never had a problem with the EU paying for a European war.
As far as both countries on the same side needing to agree to continue a war it’s generally not that both countries need to agree to end it. Either can continue or end the war when they want to but when the stronger nation decides to end it usually the weaker ally has to follow the big dogs decision. If Israel keeps dragging us back into the war I honestly would have no problem with Trump bombing Israel. Remind the Jews whose daddy in this relationship. Might even be fairly popular in domestic politics.
They probably made the right call there turning Palestine into rubble.
The point of having political capital to do stuff is to spend it. When your political capital is high you should spend it doing stuff you want to do until it is low. Then you stop and start building capital again.
Same thing with money. Dying with a vault of gold is stupid. Spend it on creating a world you want to create.
The main issue Israel has had relates to mass migration into western countries and the rise of wokism in developed countries. These were always going to present a problem for Israel whether they did something or not. More Muslims in Europe is bad for Israel. An anti-white movement in the west and anti-success is bad for the Jews. I think Nixon was caught on tape probably many times being racists. Of the Jews I don’t think he trusted them but he noted they were highly competent. The west doesn’t like competency anymore.
Opt-out
5d ago
The nuclear threat of oil though seems to be rapidly disappearing. If Venezuela and Argentina energy comes online plus some pipelines built in the gulf the leverage here will dissipate. Even now it was a weaker threat. The Straight was closed and 1970 energy issues didn’t appear.
Opt-out
7d ago
The 2-3% run rate was just 80 (human lifespan)(US drug OD/year)/US population. This is only fentanyl. Addiction rates would need to include the alcoholics (slow deaths), weed, gamblers. And a true libertarian society like the internet would mean much younger age of exposure.
Opt-out
7d ago
IMO founding fathers didn’t deal with the modern advertising and marketing state or dopamine drips from phones. And in this thread we are specific talking about smartphones and children. Maybe 99% is too high but the ability to get addicted is much higher now. A few years ago lifetimes risks of dying from a fentanyl OD was running 2-3%.
Opt-out
7d ago
I’ve been saying for a while the SC doesn’t do constitutional they do popularity contests combined with ideology of appointment wrapped in some constitutionally adjacent wordcelling.
I’m fairly convinced textually the 2nd Amendment is extremely broad, but that’s not what we have.
Opt-out
7d ago
To be clear you support like genociding 99% of Americans? Everyone genes have something like alcoholism in them. And with modern technology targeting human fault points becomes increasingly easy. Gambling on your phone. 2-clicks drone delivered alcohol and drugs.
And a lot of things people do that are bad also have socially desirable attributes. With alcohol it’s only a slight difference between being life of the party socially talented guy and a life ruined by alcoholism. Some could even say that’s just the difference between Joe and Hunter Biden. Gambling is also very similar. Degenerate gambler and hedge fund manager is a fairly similar personality trait.
Opt-out
7d ago
Unlimited freedom is a hellish dystopian society. You could say it’s freedom for alcohol companies to target customers by identifying alcoholics by having mobile alcohol trucks setting up outside someone’s house offering the first drink for free at 9 am and ratcheting up temptation. Mobile phones can be like that.
Young children often don’t have great temptation control. I don’t think having shitty parents means that children should be offered vices at 8 year olds. There is always a temptation between freedom and security.
Opt-out
7d ago
IMO I feel like age verification is a motte. I 100% support young people having limited internet. Especially now that access is in your pocket and isn’t the family computer with lack of privacy.
The issue with age-verification is the linkage to adults real identities and societies broader desire for political control through thought control. You can’t do the good thing (8 year olds not able to watch bukkake) without also making it very easy for society to do the bad thing (universal thought police).
This seems to be a universal issue with modern technology. Nuclear energy having bombs or Self-Driving enabling government to control your cars.
Opt-out
10d ago
Yes Status is more important than money. People will sacrifice a lot more for respect than money.
Re-instating Mrs. as a social norm for married or with kids does more for increasing the birth rate than sending checks.
Opt-out
10d ago
Sure. Exceptions that prove the rule on what works. Wal-Mart was essentially founded in 1969. Apple is 4x+ the value and it’s modern phone company business was essentially founded in Nov ‘2001 with the IPod(computer business was basically bankrupt).
Opt-out
10d ago
Honestly feels soft to me and a grifter. Isn’t a bug bounty just essentially an administrator? Who background sounds like someone good at politics.
But if your gift is “be good at politics” working within woke organizations then you are “extremely bad at politics” working with MAGA.
Opt-out
10d ago
Why are we claiming she’s a “proven expert”? I see nothing remarkable in her background. She went to a shitty college. And she did the thing that is a strong indicator of incompetence - filed a sex discrimination lawsuit.
Note: had to look up Wikipedia she went to a bad college. Yep 83% acceptance rate. 2 strong strikes against her.
Opt-out
10d ago
A lot less. And it’s not entirely a liquidity thing. Google was able to replace CEO’s. I think meta could probably replace Zuckerberg and people wouldn’t assume it changes company trajectory. Tesla/SpaceX value is like 75% Musks is smarter than everyone else and knows how to do innovation. It think based on the quality of Starlink as a platform that SpaceX is probably worth 500b without Musks. Tesla has a similar premium.
If an 80% holder of Pepsi stock decided to sell it would be a liquidity issue. And Pepsi stock isn’t going to crash if they change the CEO. SpaceX stock would crash 75% if he died but all his stock was in trust for all his kids that were banned from selling for 20 years.
All of the richest guys year “X” have similar issues evaluating as Musks. Pompey could just lose in battle and the new Emperor takes his assets etc.
Opt-out
10d ago
It depends what’s in the deal but pipeline construction should ramp up now. There were reasons to not do it before and let Iran have the close the Straight card because then they didn’t need the build nukes card. That seems over now.
Opt-out
10d ago
Internet = platform moat. Physical world largely = no moat so profits are temporary. Good investors do not invest in Elon style businesses they want to find firms that will develop effectively toll road monopolies that have safe profits.
Elon himself is a moat. You need to maintain a huge tech capability edge to maintain profits in the physical world.
Opt-out
10d ago
Basic terms I’m seeing is like 20-25B in released frozen assets. On net I feel like this is a win for US. I think we degraded enough military etc to make it worthwhile.
Opt-out
11d ago
Usually we pray after a game. Say some words to Our Mother. That’s a strange tradition you seem to have.”
Opt-out
11d ago
This in general is the art of IPO trading. But you do get in a game of musical chairs where everyone else playing low float games is trying to sell before the others sell.
This one is weirder because the high amount of retail size and the faster lockout periods with some accelerating if the price is up X%. Which is quite honestly a great adjustment to the ipo process. Too many small float games were played last decade.
Opt-out
11d ago
IMO when rules change to allow what everyone over 30 knows as a travel then every player has to adopt to those rules. If you limited your moves to what use to legal then your just not going to be as good of player as guys playing within the full new rule set. Honestly a bit like MLB in the steroid era. They were tacitly legal so if you weren’t on steroids you weren’t going to be a good player or at a minimum worse than you would be.
Who of our allies are sovereign states moreso than the barbarian tribes in Roman?
The power gap between the US and everyone else besides China (not an ally) is equally large. We can if we wanted to debank and cut energy consumption in Europe atleast 50% if we wanted to. Probably can’t just kill them like the Romans could but even then we may be overestimating how easy it would be for the Romans to do that.
More options
Context Copy link