Last paragraph basically says it all:

This is not to congratulate China for its authoritarian government, for its repression of minorities or for the iron fist it deploys against any form of dissent. But it merits pondering how this undemocratic government could successfully slash its poverty rate when the richest and oldest democracy in the world wouldn’t.

I’m old enough to remember this and I approve of your suggestion. But tbh i’d also be fine with 10, 1, 4 and 7.

They are the boss, i agree, but the factually Trump is in the highest position and factually nobody rules over him. I’m not argueing that reality is different, because it’s obvious Trump is behaving as a russian asset.

I got your point, just tried to make the distinction between ruling and controlling, because in my eyes the verb ruling is for those who are factually in charge (the people in official positions) and controlling is a better fit for those that are de facto in charge (oligarchs, international corpo’s, foreign state actors etc).

Wouldn’t mind if they hired those guys for the next playstation tbh lol

How about 12, 3, 6 and 9?

It’s not a lost cause though, resistance is at least slowing down it’s implementation and possibly weakening it’s legal base. But i get you’re sentiment, it does not look like they will stop comming for copies of our digital conversations.

Only if they cared enough to analyse the data though

Cheap natively english-speaking labour, to be precise.

ruled by

I’d say controlled by is more accurate, because the people who factually rule the US are not based outside of the US.

Not sure what you consider a long distance, but if it travels as far as a pigeon you might want to go see a medical professional.

It’s greed that fuels it. Capitalism first becomes ‘capitalism’ which in turn becomes some sort of oligarchy until there is only a central wealthy and powerful entity and ultimately it’s just a single wealthy autocrat ruling everybody.

I’d argue if you bomb your enemy who has mini-nukes and regular nukes, their next step of escalation would be to use the mini-nukes. On the other had, if they only have regular nukes they would have to skip this middle step and use those instead. Ergo, only having regular nukes is a bigger deterrence than having both. That, and you have some unwasted money left for education and healthcare.

Kg for sure, i wouldn’t trust tp with a low cost per mm²

The bottom two make sense.

8 super mega = 48 reg.
24 double = 48 reg

So 1 super mega = 3 double = 6 reg
1 double is ⅓ super mega or 2 reg 1 reg = ⅙ super mega or ½ double

But how many giant rolls is 1 super mega? Is that more or less 4,000 sheets?

I guess $/kg (or any non-metric alternative) doesn’t say much either.

What’s the point of neutral lower courts if the ultimate say is for a bunch of people that aren’t neutral. You can win the first two and still get fucked over by the third round. The game is rigged.

A tax on wealth is about wealthy people paying tax, because they aren’t taxed through work. But yes, reading the article is too much work. Guilty.

Their excuse is that the Russians also need to eat and to withhold food to them is immoral. I say we allow them to continue to do business with Russia, but don’t allow them to keep their profits. It will soon become clear how much they care about the hunger of Russians.

That there is such high potential for corruption? Does it mean they don’t get paid enough? Or does it mean that they are essentially interested in the wrong things, namely money and pretty ladies they aren’t married to?

It would mean something if many of them would choose to do businss with chinese spies. It would mean something if secret service would keep this a secret. But what happened so far doesn’t say much about the state of politics of “western” (?) countries. The only thing this news really says something about, is about what China is willing to so get information that is not publicly available to them.

If Europe isn’t China’s enemy, why does it treat it as an enemy?