Yes, because all the communist countries over the past 100 years were utopias devoid of greed and suffering. *Editor's note: they were not.* Communist regimes are just as eager to exploit natural resources and conquer territory as any other nation. Do you think communism stopped China from emitting so much CO2?

My experience with these kinds of decisions is that cloud connectivity is useful for two reasons: 1) it allows data collection, which can be another revenue stream, and 2) it's easier for the end user to setup than any kind of local direct connection. As long as both devices can get to the web, it'll work, but some routers, e.g., won't necessarily let devices on the same network talk to each other by default, and their IP address can randomly change due to DHCP, etc.

I'm not American, but I get tired of the "everything American is bad" mantra. We should be using evidence-based decision making, not our feelings.

Sorry, but the USA is nowhere near the top when it comes to over-prescribing antibiotics. Iran tops the list, where "more than half of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions... lacked medical justification." Heck, I was on a vacation in Mexico a few years ago and my kid got an eye infection (we first noticed it when getting on the plane to go there). The doctor at the resort prescribed antibiotic eye drops, an oral antibiotic, *and* an immediate antibiotic injection. I admit that it cleared up pretty fast, but holy crap I've never seen a doctor do that before.

Literally a "hot seat"

As a control systems engineer, putting the control loop through the cloud is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, make it so you can change the setting from your phone, assuming you know how to setup secure communication, but the control loop needs to be local. This is just dumb engineering.

Okay, Ivan.

SLS is super-successful, just not at putting people on the moon. The real goal of the program was to give federal money handouts to all the former space industry suppliers spread all over the country from the space shuttle years. That's why it was built right into the funding legislation that the SLS had to be created from space shuttle technology, like the main engines and the (upgraded) solid rocket boosters. It's an absurd example of pork barrel politics, especially now that SpaceX is proving you can do it all with far lower cost per kg to orbit, and true re-usability (at least for the first stage).

My neighbor works at the facility that's being shut down. After investing ~$2 billion to re-tool the plant for "state of the art" EV production, it's pretty sad to see all these jobs just go up in smoke, with no alternative production slated. It's so wasteful of resources.

Well, you have to question the morals of a Hamas supporter, don't you? I mean if you're chanting things like "from the river to the sea", how are you not advocating for genocide yourself? It's not like the Palestinians wouldn't wipe all the Jewish people off the map if they had the chance.

The wikipedia page has a pretty good summary of what it means.

Did you even do any searching yourself? The wikipedia page lists several cities that tried it to various degrees.

All joking aside, a few years ago defunding the police was a policy that was seriously pushed in many cities throughout the US. A few actually tried it. Not only did it have the rather obvious effect of increasing crime rates, but it invariably hurt the communities it was intended to help the most. It just pays to keep a skeptical attitude about all new policy initiatives, no matter who is putting them forward. Most of the policies we currently have, though imperfect, were created for some kind of reason. It's not stupid to demand change, but it's stupid to demand change when you have no idea what problem the current policies were created to solve. I'm not sure why we have to keep learning this lesson the hard way.

After WWII, the US spearheaded a new idea in geopolitics... instead of empires, the world would use a system of institutions like the UN, the WHO, the WTO, and the world bank to resolve disputes. The US invited countries to join this alliance network. In exchange for being able to trade with any country in the world (with the US guaranteeing freedom of navigation across the oceans) that country would agree to join the alliance network and basically have the US write their security plan. This was a remarkably effective strategy for both the US and the other allied nations. The US got the benefits of an empire without the nasty necessities of brutally oppressing the other nations under its umbrella, Russia (and later China) were effectively contained, and worldwide economic growth was exponential, with the US being the trading hub for all that money flow, which gave them enormous intelligence gathering potential, not to mention leverage.

The fact that the US forgot how it became the only superpower is rather sad. Yes, there were several missteps along the way, like Vietnam. But it was largely successful. The second gulf war was the first breakdown of the rules-based world order. The UN refused to authorize an invasion of Iraq, and the US said, "to heck with you, we're going anyway, and if you're not with us, you're against us." It's not a coincidence that Putin used the second gulf war as justification when invading Ukraine.

I appreciate that the American people no long want to be the world's police force. I really get it. The thing is, the US did this because it had just fought two world wars, and they knew that Europe, being Europe, was just going to keep fighting wars over and over again, and the US was going to be drawn in every time. When this rules-based world order falls, we're going to see a (hopefully conventional) WWIII, and the US is going to be drawn in again. Everyone in the geopolitical space seems to be saying this is pretty much inevitable. It's sad, but it's a bit like watching a train wreck, and being powerless to stop it.

Both Russia and China had a chance to adopt democracy and join the rules-based world order, and after flirting with it, both have recently turned their back on it. Can Europe save itself? I don't know. It's been demonstrated how to go about it. But can the diverse people of Europe come together and do it? I don't think they're capable.

While I do agree with you, as a citizen of a country that's been on the receiving end of some 51st state rhetoric lately, do you see how the US is being a little expansionist now too?