they don't pay a CEO a ridiculous salary and they haven't gotten stupidly greedy and egotistical, nor have they hired all their useless 'friends' ?

New because Big Business bought up the independents and now control the market and like all controlled markets, they raised prices and lowered wages. The rich get needlessly richer by cheating and stealing from the rest of us. This is what classism looks like.

they should be held fully accountable and so should the senior managers, the owner and the shareholders

The top people at NASA are making big six figure salaries like all the top people. The top salary employees are overpaid, the bottom wage earners are underpaid. Two wrongs don't make it right. Not to even mention benefits and pensions. Now, let's take about the private subcontractors and their salaries, shall we? Or the wealth of the shareholders.

What I see is a classist ineffective bureaucracy feeding greedy industry. Which is why we don't have a real rotating space station, orbital assembly platforms and orbital factories and a moon base yet. NASA is earthbound and interested only in remote toys for rich kids to play with at the taxpayer's expense. We need real astronauts, not real bureaucrats. Just saying.

It cost to much because NASA is a top heavy bloated bureaucracy, not because of the mission costs. We'd have a lot more space exploration if upper class people weren't getting richer off of poor people's taxes.

The penalties should scale with the size of the crime and those people who made these decisions should be held personally accountable. It's time to end the upper class shield of limited or no liability for those who profits from criminals enterprises. This is exactly what classism looks like.

Linus for president.

And yet so many companies pay technical writers very poorly and often don't ever bother even consulting one. Documentation is often just an afterthought, inadequate, inaccurate and created by people who can't communicate even within the team they work with. Don't get me started on management either. Most companies just don't care, it's all about maximizing profits, minimizing quality and proper documentation would just provide a clear view of their incompetency, so they happily fail to budget for it. There's often far too few technical writers so they are always overwhelmed anyways. The amount of poorly documented code is staggering, exceeded only by the amount of incompetence within upper management, but guess where most of a project's funding actually goes; yup, right to the top few. The real problems with corporate software are greed and irresponsibility. Just saying.

I understand that you’re frustrated and trying to make a point, but dismissing others as “the same bullshit” doesn’t advance the conversation. Debate online works best when people engage with ideas rather than venting at the messenger. If your goal is to have anyone, including yourself, reflect on how evidence and argumentation function, framing your critique around the substance of what’s said will be far more effective than attacking the person delivering it.

Your argument is riddled with obvious contradictions and selective reasoning, you dismiss responsibility as irrelevant while simultaneously lamenting political inaction, which exposes your own inability to connect human behavior with systemic influence, you reduce complex social dynamics to fatalism while simultaneously asserting technological inevitability, you claim tree hugging and marginal policies are irrelevant yet ignore that collective incremental action shapes markets, social norms, and political pressure, you elevate markets as omnipotent while neglecting that markets respond to regulation, culture, and incentives, you cherry-pick examples of failed policies and ESG abuses without acknowledging successes or adaptive learning, you assume humans will never accept disruption yet offer no evidence that societal values are static, you fetishize nuclear and high-tech solutions as saviors while ignoring that technology alone is insufficient without coordinated policy and behavior change, and ultimately, you glorify cynicism as pragmatism while hiding behind convenience, ignoring that your fatalism itself is a political choice with moral consequences.

For you to need to stretch so far perfectly demonstrates the validity of my position, so be smart, reconsider your position, and don't double down on indefensibility, that's a losers battle.

just saying

You’ve written a wall of text defending what boils down to an expectation that the burden of curiosity should always fall on someone else. You act as if asking for sources is a sacred right that absolves you from doing any legwork of your own, and you’re dressing it up as intellectual rigor. It isn’t. It’s you trying to outsource the cost of thinking.

You say you’ve “done the research,” but if that’s true, then you already know what evidence exists to challenge or confirm the claim in question. So why the tantrum? You’re not really asking for evidence, you’re demanding validation. You want someone to hand you something in a format that fits your convenience, because otherwise you’ll label them “lazy.” That’s not skepticism, that’s entitlement.

You’re also hiding behind a false standard. Academic papers require citations because they’re meant to document a chain of evidence for third parties, they’re a permanent record, not a comment thread. Real-world discourse isn’t a term paper. If someone makes a claim, your job is to evaluate the logic first, not demand a bibliography on demand. If the logic is garbage, you don’t need a single source to see it. If the logic is sound, then yes, evidence is the next step, but insisting that no discussion is valid until someone pastes URLs is you putting form over substance.

Your whole “I used to provide sources but people just dismissed them” bit is telling: you’re burned out, so now you punish anyone who doesn’t jump through the same hoops you feel you had to. That’s not an argument. That’s bitterness masquerading as principle. You’re not improving the discussion, you’re poisoning it.

And finally, you admit you’re no longer willing to provide sources because others didn’t reciprocate. That’s childish tit-for-tat. If you want a higher standard of discourse, you have to model it, not sulk and demand others play by rules you’ve abandoned yourself. Right now, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing others of: shouting assertions, refusing to back them, and then calling people lazy for not fetching links to validate your priors.

In short: you’re not holding up a mirror. You’re hiding behind one. Furthermore, I know a troll when I see one and I know that rejecting technology just because you don't understand it is a sure sign of a closed mind. Just saying.

I've got all day and technology you refuse to use on my side. You're in a fight you just can't win but carry on, it's good practice for me and instructive to others, even if you refuse to see what's right in front of you. Self-justification leads to this and it's not helping you or your arguments. Rather than blame others, you need to take a good look at yourself. Me, I'm not holding my breath because I know self honesty is hard and many people just take the easy way out. You can't say I'm not trying to do you a favor by offering you a different perspective than the one you are clinging to.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

every country has ideals, America is no different and certainly not special in that regard, what you're describing is nationalism and regionalism

these are isms

it does not matter where you are but what one makes of where one is at, everyone people strive for high ideals and life is full of heroism

we are all children of the universe, no less than the trees or the stars

don't confuse this with thinking that where one lives somehow makes one special, that's just the road to arrogance and egoism

it's a mistake to put one's self above others in an equalitarian society

the country you're in is good enough, comparing where you're at to other places is pointless because there's always better and or worse places, it's not where we're at, it's what we're making with what we have and where we are. A place is just a place
the USA can be good or not, but so can any other place
place is irrelevant, what's relevant is how you are in the place you're at

You’re complaining loudly, but the irony is that you’re proving the very point you claim to oppose: you’re demanding rigor from others while refusing to hold yourself to the same standard of basic intellectual discipline. You seem to think that if someone doesn’t hand you links on a silver platter, their argument is automatically worthless. That’s childish. Arguments stand or fall on their logic and evidence, not on whether someone spoon-fed you a clickable URL. You also conflate two separate issues, the reliability of search engines and the responsibility of the person making a claim. Yes, search results evolve. Yes, commentary and noise can shift rankings. But that doesn’t absolve you of responsibility to think critically. If you’re capable of forming opinions strong enough to fill paragraphs like this, then you’re capable of evaluating sources without someone else babysitting your search bar. When you default to “I won’t believe anything unless you do all the work for me,” you’re essentially saying your own curiosity is conditional on other people’s labor. That’s not skepticism, that’s laziness disguised as principle. And the tone you’ve chosen, openly calling people “lazy asses”, reveals more about your own intellectual insecurity than about anyone else’s research habits. You admit you see agreement but still prefer to insult rather than engage. That’s not debate, that’s noise. If you really care about truth, you’d match rigor with rigor: bring your sources, interrogate theirs, cross-reference, and refine your understanding. Instead, you’ve chosen to weaponize your frustration as a shield against doing the very thing you claim to value, verifying information.

Bottom line: you’ve turned a shared quest for clarity into a tantrum about convenience. If you want serious discourse, stop demanding to be carried through it. Start contributing to it. Otherwise, you’re just complaining about a symptom of the very intellectual laziness you’re displaying. Just saying.

Look, we're just arguing, it's not a big deal. If you don't want to google stuff, just ask ChatGPT.

I'd buy you a drink if I could, I hate drinking alone. :)

I'm a Canadian, from Alberta, near Banff. Nobody goes to the US for healthcare unless they want to jump to the head of the que and they're in the upper class. No Canadian would ever trade our healthcare system for yours. Just ask any Canadian. Geez, language isn't the barrier you make it out to be. What I see from you is typical US nationalism, like America is actually a world leader. The only thing Americans excel at is putting people in jail and how much you spend on your military. By every other metric, America isn't even in the race. Oh and you do ok in sports sometimes. So what? Indeed, just look at all the emigration out of the US at the moment. How's your tourism doing these days? I hear Las Vegas is down some 35%, Florida's not looking so good either.

America is no longer the power it once was and Trump is isolating America. Personally, I doubt your country will ever recover. If he goes for a third term, you're done.

America Is the Greatest Country in The World ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Good luck, I think you're going to need it. Just saying.