Option 8 is not a real one. They cannot shot anyone beside China, South Korea and most likely themselves. And option two is called Russia these days.

They show that the stuff you bought have, for example, a high salt concentration. Naturally, you would not eat so much of the stuff that it would be harmful. However, this might not be so clear for other product or for other people. Anyway, the label alerts you to the fact that this food has a high salt concentration.

BTW: Many people have a distorted relationship to food. They eat two bags of potato chips together with 2 liter of coke during a TV session. The idea is to inform them more drastically that the stuff they eat has high concentration of salt, fat etc.

JavaScript is not evil when used properly. True, it is one of the worst ever designed languages, but presently it is the only available DOM manipulation language included in all browsers.

This has been found out over and over again, but the food industry will always lobby against anything which would reduce their market. They even lobby against labels. In the EU, there was an initiative which wanted to color code the amount of fat, sugar, salt and other carbohydrates with (green = low, yellow = medium, and red = high) together with numerical values. It was stopped after massive lobbying. So now these labels are all white or black, require reading, and the values are distorted in different ways.

So this is an uphill battle. What helps, is buying at a local market instead of a supermarket. And do not watch TV adverts.

The whole point of big data is to identify common properties of groups of people to be able to exploit them. While big data could also be used to find diseases, protect us from natural disasters, its is only utilized to such efforts when their is a financial gain or a gain in control of the population. For companies, it is only used for exploitation. Now wondering about that is hypocritical.

First, the unpopularity is not evenly distributed in all classes of society. Second, a lot of people defend capitalism, because they mistake it for market economy. Third, a large person think capitalism is freedom and any change is dictatorship, like Russia. They confuse economic system and political system. Communism and democracy could be combined (in theory), where all goods belong to everyone. And we all decide over its use. I personally doubt that such concept would work. Other concepts have worked in the past and present which have different states of ownerships.

Still. Those who control the states in Western country are in favor of the present economy. We all life in an oligarchy, just like the Russians and Ukrainians. The major difference, we have to freedom of speech and they do not. However, we are ignored, while they get all the attention of the state.

I know this is crazy, but you could share your apartment with one for free. And hope to get offered the same when visiting some place. This is called altruism and happened very often in the "distant" past.

A negative income tax would either require higher taxes for the middle class, which would result in no impact or a minimal impact on the economy at large, as money is transferred between those who have not much to those who have nothing. Or you have to tax the rich resulting in a transfer from savings to the poor who spend it. This would have a positive effect on the economy, increasing jobs (for short), and increase inflation (a bit), however this would not find the approval of your oligarchic overlords in the US. And raising taxes for the middle class would be used in "elections" to destroy an opponent in an election. Therefore, both options will not happen.

Sharing is and even more was also very common in the West (from a European point of view). However, that deteriorated over the past decades (starting in the 1970ies). Now we at an all time low. And as wealth is generally decreasing,sharing start to become interesting again. Furthermore, capitalism is no longer that popular.

In previous decades people shared stuff a lot. They shared tools, e.g., when they build houses. They shared land. They shared knowledge. Farmers, share their equipment for a long time, as it was expensive all the time. For example, harvesters are shared even today through farmers cooperatives. The "new" share economy is, therefore, not new. The only new thing is that the sharing platform is now a company and not a joint organisation making profit out of sharing. Furthermore, consumers are now able to share their goods with people over a larger area. And true, people would have led their car in the past only to people they know of. Now they share it with people who pay for it.

In the past sharing was a social act. Now it is a business. However, traditional sharing is also increasing. And traditional sharing requires people to like each other. Therefore, they have to build working relationships, which is definitively a step in the right direction.

For EU companies it is now impossible to store user related or other sensitive data on servers or cloud nodes provided by US American companies. Data privacy regulations in the EU would prohibit the use of such infrastructure. Even though there is a "safe harbor" treaty.

Where I am from, people could get payed leave for education purposes. Maybe such socialist ideas could help on the education side of the problem. The other is communicating the business goals and objectives to the employee, every good company should do so. As a side effect, they can learn if their plan can really be communicated. Remember, the thoughts manifest themselves when you talk about them.

It starts at university, where students learn for exams and not to understand the matter. They are often unable to think at all. If they have a problem, they would not even try to define it and, at least, then google it. They do not read manuals. Faced with a more complex problem, e.g., in a practical course, most of them fail. As, I assume that they are not stupid are general mentally unable to think, it must be laziness. This laziness is a trained behavior learned in school. In school you also have only to write exams, but never to understand the topics deeply. You can learn for and forget after every exam. In history, in writing etc. Especially, when learning to write an article, people should start to think in a structured way. The truth is, they do not.

The second obstacle in IT is prejudice. If a technology, concept or method X is new or a technician is unfamiliar with, it is considered rubbish. As this might be true with some X and other X might be just new names for old X, critical thinking would help to distinguish real new helpful X from the rest. But instead of thinking they rely on hunches. While a hunch is good, you must back it up with a solid examination.

Gold does not work. Gold is only worth what you get for it. In an economical collapse you get nothing. At present the gold price is very high because money is so cheap. What really helps is a house of flat in a building not made out of wood and paper.

Nowadays you need only media to control the population and can skip the secret police. It is a well documented approach. You may read Manufacturing Consent from Noam Chomsky or watch the movie on Youtube (iff you are lazy).