But then, even at the end of his post, Krugman concedes that there's not much point to the analysis.
Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
But then it becomes contemporary, not historical.
Continuing my tradition of using Hydro-QuÃ©bec's installed capacity as a unit of measurement, this "environmental problem" is only consuming 0.0011 Hydro-QuÃ©becs.
So how many bitcoins are we stealing from Newfoundland each day then?
It's worth noting that Richard actions constitute libel in the U.K. I donno if her accusation of the forking remark constitute libel in the U.S., perhaps given that it's false. I'd assume that her accusation of the dongles remark does not constitute libel in the U.S., being true.
I'm pretty sure that looking at somebody funny constitutes defamation in the U.K. some way or another. I wouldn't use British defamation laws as an analog for any reasonable country.
"Online TV giant Netflix was closed captions unauthorized use of his pants down..."
I predict "unauthorized use of his pants down" to be the new "not want".
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.