It’s so bleak watching entire demographics of people being more-or-less openly categorised as expendable. Alerts intended to spur action in response to an impending disaster should be available to as many people as possible.
Even a selection of generic translations with a time inserted would be better than this, and it’s heartwrenching that they’re not even willing to put that tiny amount of effort in.
I hate these people so much. Literally just leave us alone.
Honestly, while it sucks for Bells Larsen and his fans, I think trans people especially should stay away from the US in any case.
More than a few cases where cishet white people have been disappeared for indefinite detention at the border on flimsy pretense, and they’re much more insulated demographically to the administration’s nonsense than we are.
I do understand the allure of “we should make things again”, and the security implications of maintaining a local manufacturing capacity and workforce - but I think people from advanced economies are incredibly myopic about what it actually looks like to develop that capacity back.
It’ll be difficult for the US to compete on price with countries like China, which have a much better developed manufacturing sector and lower wages / cost of living, even with steep tariffs applied to inflate the prices of imported goods.
They’d probably have to subsidise production in the short-term, and invest heavily in capital to automate production to the greatest extent possible so as to avoid needing to ask Americans to accept lower living standards to stand a chance.
Maybe not overnight, but all friends begin as strangers.
The issue with the US isn’t exactly Trump himself, it’s that nearly half of American voters endorse him and that there’s a line of vying inheritors for his brand of politics forming.
Trade, foreign, and domestic policy in the US can now be reasonably assumed to turn on a dime every few years, and that’s exposure to risk that nobody wants to deal with.
Even within the four years, we’re like three months in and the man is rapidly changing his mind on the fundamentals of international relationships. Whether he’s manipulating markets, trying to force capitulation somehow, or something else is irrelevant - other countries are more stable and those relationships can provide what’s needed.
Yes, but sometimes producing for the public domain is their job. Sponsorships, grants, and other funding instruments exist for people who do work which is committed to the public domain.
Not necessarily? You’d retain first-to-market advantages, particularly where implementation is capital-heavy - and if that’s not enough you could consider an alternative approach to rewarding innovation such as having a payout or other advantage for individuals or entities which undertake significant research and development to emerge with an innovative product.
I think the idea that nobody would commit to developing anything in the absence of intellectual property law is also maybe a bit too cynical? People regularly do invest resources into developing things for the public domain.
At the very least, innovations developed with a significant amount of public funding - such as those which emerge from research universities with public funding or collaborative public-private endeavours at e.g. pharmaceutical companies - should be placed into the public domain for everybody to benefit from, and the copyright period should be substantially reduced to something more like five years.
I meant security less in the armed conflict sense, more in the less vulnerable to disruption sense. It does make sense to retain a food production sector, and a manufacturing sector for important goods like pharmaceuticals - because countries are likely to prioritise themselves in times of scarcity or crisis. I agree that interdependence is good for avoiding conflict.