Man, at this point I am thinking I should just disable all links in any email I get.

You like many people in the US, have fallen victim to the poor education that the GOP attempts to create.

Capitalism is NOT about the rights of the wealthy. It is not about corporations or the government. Plutocracy is rule by the rich. They get to do what they want, everyone else suffers. That is NOT capitalism.

Here is the full paragraph that Google returns, because you lied about Googles results - you left out the second sentence proving you wrong:

"Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals or businesses own and control the means of production and operate for profit. It emphasizes free markets, competition, and minimal government intervention in the economy.

Those are the important requirements for capitalism that Plutocrats hate. They do not want free markets, competition or minimal government intervention. They want restricted markets, no competition - all enforced by the governments laws.

Plutocrats are not and never have been capitalists. They hate the idea of capitalism, just as the Mercantilists do.

If I buy something, I OWN IT. Not you. As I own it you do not have the legal ability to put ANY contracts on it. Your belief that you can sell it but still somehow prevent me from doing with it what I want is anti-capitalist plutocrat philosophy.

It is fundamentally anti-capitalism to let the people that 'sold' something to have control over it. That is the opposite of a free market.

Rental agreements are different, but nobody would rent military equipment - the likelyhood of loss is too great.

You are incorrect because you misunderstand Capitalism. You have spent a lifetime being lied to by the GOP. Capitalism is NOT about making you rich. Nor is it to benefit the wealthy, the corporations, or the government. That is GOP bullcrap.

Capitalism is about competition and free market. If you have read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nation you would understand that.

There is NO special protection given to producers. The single most important idea Adam Smith came up was "everyone should be free to enter and leave the market and change trades as often as he pleases"

Free choice is the key. If I buy something, I own it and I have the freedom to do what I want with it.

If the seller attempts to put restrictions into that, that is not a purchase, it is a rental.

The corrupt anti-capitalist plutocratic idea that it is legal for sellers to retain control over things they sell is something Adam Smith would decry as wrong.

The people against right to repair are a bunch of anti-capitalists plutocrats. Capitalism = free (as in choice) market = no restrictions on repair.

The scum trying that crap on the US military should be forbidden from selling to the US government for 10 years.

The problem with the Line and other such products is not that it is impossible to build, but it is an incredibly bad design. Someone came up with an image, then they decided to go with it, rather than thinking about what was needed and what the advantages of it.

A circle would have cut the travel time significantly between all locations. It would have enclosed an internal area that would have significant environmental and electrical benefits. A simple railroad could have connected circle with the other end of the "Line".

But no, someone in power thought "Line" and they planned around that. They figured out how to do it and told him it was possible. Then they calculated the total cost which was immense. But when the boss found out what he wanted was so expensive, he decided to make changes.

It may never get build the way he originally designed it - mainly because he was not a trained designer. He was a rich guy that thought is this possible rather than is this a good idea?

That 1.7%+ fee found in North America?

In France it is 0.4% - at the most. Sometimes it is as low as 0.2%

Not a type. Less than 1/4 of the amount North America pays.

No, they do not have the 1% cashback crap. But why would you want to pay 1% more now to MAYBE get 1% back later?

Cause you are paying that 1% more now.

The word you are looking for is "Sarcastic", not performative.
In general, whenever you think "performative" on the internet, replace with sarcastic. They are almost identical, except for the intended insult.

But I do understand that sarcasm is hard to express on the internet. You did not see my massive eye roll while typing.

Does the baby not get citizenship? Is the baby killed?

Or do all the penalties form on the doctors and parents that did it.

Technically Judges cannot do that directly. Instead the procedure is:
1) Report to Bar
2) Have a Hearing by the Bar
3) The bar can decide to take their license for X amount of time.

But I do agree that is what the Judges should be doing.

The judges can however hold anyone in contempt of court for any reason at any time. Do not even have to be in court. You can appeal it, but as long as the Judge was somewhere near reasonable, you will not succeed.

If however the Judge does something like hold the Umpire at his kid's baseball game in Contempt, then yes you will almost certainly win the appeal.

If they come within 3 feet of you whisper:

"Please buy something, if you don't they will fire me and my children will starve"

Franklin was not an underling. She was the competition. She did not work for Watson in any way.

She came up with the correct data 2 years earlier, she paid for the photograph to be made.

The man that stole the photo was her enemy.

The people that did the math had no legal access to the photo.

True discoverers do not have dirty laundry to air. Name one other nobel prize winner story that had this kind of dirty laundry.
Science is not perfect. There are scum everywhere. But this kind of a-hole behavior is pretty rare.

There are to my mind, 4 controversial nobel prizes, but this is by far the most controversial one, in my opinion.

The other three are:

Haber - who deserved the prize he got for Chemistry despite working for World War One Germany's poison gas program.

Obama - who did not deserve and did not ask for the Noble prize he got for being the first black president. He did a great job as President - not once having to send the national guard to deal with riot, not once having SCOTUS having to stop an investigation into him.

Arafat - who deserved the peace prize despite being a violent extremist before he earned it.

Translation1: Those companies are making a mistake by not giving him what he wants for free, in order for his company to become profitable.

Translation2: Those companies should not have put stuff on the internet for sale with a paywall if they didn't want people like me to steal it without getting permission.

Hahaha, what?

You say the pilot in control should have intentionally sheered off the wings (FULL OF JET FUEL) off during a dual-engine failure? You obviously have no idea about planes.

There is nothing that could have been done. They were past V1. There was no arrester pit at the end of the runway (which wouldn't have done much). We're talking about a vehicle loaded with 10,000s of lbs of fuel. Sheering the wings off would have spread chaos and destruction.

There is nothing that could have been done.

He said the four top companies were "AI centric".
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta

These are NOT AI companies. Their business is not currently funded by AI, nor is it their main focus. They ARE very rich computing companies that think AI is going to become their business, so they heavily invest in it $360 billion.

That is NOT a big investment for those four companies - they are worth more than 9 trillion total. Spending about 10% of their value is significant, but not amazing.

The issue is that humans are bad at large numbers. We get so shocked and surprised about the large things that we do not know if that number is a lot or a little.

Example: $2 billion dollars spent on socks a year. Is that the number for France, the number for the US, or the number for the entire world? If you do not know then you cannot tell if that number is high or low. It happens to be the number for the US. But you have no frame of reference to know if it was for the entire world or for France.

When a reporter tells you how big something is, chances are they have no idea if that number is too large or too small.