No one is regulating the bridges in that scenario, because the ecosystem isn't a bridge, it's a fully segregated network that requires separate vehicles that they provide, doing the most they can to profit of the possessions you transport and anything offering convenience, denying the ones they don't like, and so on. At some point, you can effectively limit what commercial activities can profitably exist, usurping functions of the state.

If only there was a way to know what we had in exchange, and whether it included lesser risk or cardiovascular issues... I guess we'll never know!

https://academic.oup.com/cid/a...

It's been pretty clear, no matter in which group you are, that you're much safer being vaccinated, and the number keep pilling up. No matter how awful Pfizer is, which, ironically, also sells the effective expensive treatment.

I haven't done anything with Rust, and probably won't ever do anything that low level, but, as far as I understand it, by having language features that allow avoiding explicit mutexes most of the time, hidden in the bowels of unsafe code of useful and (mostly) cost-free abstractions. For when you need it, a sentinel is introduced that forces programmers to deal with the failure case (leaking and so on, but no undefined execution) or allow the program to crash.

At the low level of the kernel, with extra special requirements, you probably can still do some mitigation with typing, but it's a bit beyond me.

A wealthy investor couldn't possibly promote monopolistic wunderwaffen that would also increase his legacy score.

You're a strategic interest, not an ally, Richi Rich. The US might need to use it to steer you to the right opinion for exceptional paranoia reasons as it bumble around.

Economists telling the Times what it wanted to print got it right, they got to steer the economy into capitalist financial accumulation, tame wages, and pass the buck all along the dollar standard - where it failed is in the thinking they would accept having no choice but to bow down even more. But that's another matter.
Readers, however, did get the wrong messages, because what they meant kept changing. Temporary means as long as conditions don't change, it's not a time-frame. Low unemployment is nonsensical with so many not getting the work hours they need and being precarious. Worrying about money printing is nonsense when you want to keep printing to reward financial institutions, who go around and inflate barely regulated monopolies and oligopolies to raise prices well above wage increases, which, along with any subsidies, are in turn well below cost increases.
Isn't that the actual problem with this tame inflation? Who would care about price increases if their wages were to raise as well, wiping fixed rate debt along the way, and if necessities couldn't balloon in price by fiat? The economy is about the social political impacts, not a couple of variables in an unworkable regression model that doesn't even include banking.
And so, economists did get this right, as long as you didn't want an unqualified answe . MMT economists, that is. Again.

It's not like forced privatization, public-private partnerships, NAIRU and derivatives like structural deficits or debt ratios, peddling the debt medicants, caring about some abstract misleading indexes over people's lives, deregulation, right to fire, employment phillips curve, waiting for CCS wunderwaffen, wars coups and more wars, export led development, letting the market sort necessities, and all other sorts of unsupported rubbish have ever had bad effects. No, it's commies, terrorists, Xi, Putin, the other political club, media, academia, millennials, mexicans, fentanyl, Putin again, and something they'll make up as an excuse next. Never neoliberalism.

I don't know what you're talking about, I hear it's great for your health system. If you don't know how to optimize your soup of PPO, EPO, HDHP, HSA, FSA, HRA, PCP, QLE, SBC and on, you deserve what you get.

The "choice" is well documented in the freedom spreading coups and bloody dictatorships for good; the only way they chose is because the quantity of supplied weapons was larger.

And thus you completely miss the point. They would not be cooperating if it was not for sovereignty, because there are fully aware they would, again, be disposable pawns, just like the people we claim are protecting, while their country got rights permanently curtailed and was sold to the highest bidder. Making up a genocide because other words lost their meaning doesn't change anything, and loses anyone who looks at Palestine.

Yes, that's why the global south is speeding up on getting non-dependent on the dollar, ending the CFA franc and the regimes that support it, and otherwise diversifying from being a colony. Not only that, our allies in places like Azerbaijan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the Philippines are quaking in their boots at how strongly we uphold the alleged values of paradise against the jungle, from wiping any stability in the middle east though an illegal war filled to the brim of war crimes that are unreportable to wiping millennial cities, while still sponsoring coups in the usual places, dropping vaccine compromises, and doing fuck all about man-made mass extinction.

At least willfully and slowly escalating to nuclear war by becoming more and more obviously belligerent, with no end goal at all, is new, but I don't think that's doing it either.

Oh, don't worry, the west isn't going to regain any credibility any time soon.

Great, let's hope they are tasty and nutritional.

Where do you think the trillions to pay interest come from, and to whom it goes to? There's no difference. Promoting growth is a fiscal policy, and quantity isn't velocity.

Back in the day, wages still rose and ate part of the interest. But the prices got sticky, because how else are you going to fool the middle class than to make living property investment, and they got much further away in how many years people need to pay for a roof, which all adds up.

Wages rise much lower than profits for multiple policy choices; if wages grew higher than inflation, that would be fine... for most. The issue is that with the CB coming up heads, they can speculate and inflate nonsense, tails, and they can "get ahead" of expected price rises with explicit and implicit market power, and hopefully for them, take advantage of a higher unemployment downturn.

Except, (in the US) mortgages are fixed and supply issues keep improving, while workers are fighting back, so they can't even manufacture a crisis. The rest of the world, relying on the dollar for some supposed stability, not so much.