> Most people on this planet care more about their community, than about themselves.

That's funny. Because we are talking about China where they quite literally had to back off if communism because they weren't able to FEED THEMSELVES. They discovered that harnessing individual greed was far better than suppressing it or trying to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Now they are in a position to replace the United States as a world power.

That only makes sense if the government funded the ENTIRE process rather than just some of it. Without the contribution of private companies, there would be no final product for government to steal on your behalf.

Private companies contribute the larger share of the final total R&D investment.

The products of the basic research also are not a sure thing. A lot of this stuff fails to deliver as expected. So those that bear the costs of the final stage of the R&D pipeline (private companies) bear considerable non-trivial risks.

250G isn't enough for my Steam directory and that's with being a rather casual Linux gamer.

Win10 by itself seems to want more space than that.

Although this does point to the price floor on technology in general. Drives (or anything else) only get so cheap. They don't get any cheaper even if you could get away with "using less" of something.

> Is it a surprise that people want to be able to live somewhere,

This has NOTHING to do with "evil employers" treating their employees "badly". This area suffers from exactly the same problems as any other high density urban area on the planet for the same reasons. There are too many people that want to live in the same place driving supply and demand for real estate completely out of whack.

You have the same exact problems (even worse) in "European Socialist Utopias".

So far Republicans aren't advocating "punching commies" or trying to take down Project Gutenberg.

No. We rationally acknowledge that they exist in multiple jurisdictions at the same time.

That is worse rather than better in terms of "lets assume everyone is rich".

Quitting petrochemicals cold turkey would be an apcalyptic nightmare scenario. It would we a race to see which one of us ended up dead first. You might go first despite me having a very big lead on you.

Your entire society runs on energy much of it derived from fossil fuels and all manner of critical devices also largely composed of fossil fuels.

You can't live in the future (like some Apple weenie), you have to deal with the world and technology as it exists now. Otherwise you end up with power outages, disease, starvation, and death.

That is utter bullshit and a blatant falsehood. Were you just born yesterday? Some of us weren't and we have good memories.

If that's the best you've got then you've proven the opposing position.

I'm not sure you've even stepped foot in a Walmart. Although you don't even need to go that far since they have a website for their pickup service.

Store brands that you want to inspire mindless hysteria over have been common probably since before you were even born.

Walmart in particular is all about what sells and they have the IT chops to best understand what does sell.

The grand flaw in the whole original premise is the idea that all that Bill needed was to know how to code. Building a successful business takes a bit more than that. The ivory tower nit wits don't understand what they are supposed to be measuring so they declare that it doesn't exist at all.

The entire narrative plays great with people who don't want to take any kind of responsibility for themselves. They can easily externalize their own failings.

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes. All you're doing is alienating a lot of people that would otherwise be sympathetic to "the problem".

Your stupid narrative is also actively discouraging people. It's like you are trying to beat girls away from the profession with a stick. It's the exact opposite of the glamorization of law or medicine that has existed for pretty much forever.

Hating on geeks harder isn't going to bring more girls into the tent.

It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.

This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.

Sure. Let's shred our civil liberties "for the children".

This whole narrative is shameless spin demonizing tools that allow individuals freedom to exercise free will.

Some of us are just genuine social libertines and find the new Victorian mindset appalling.