Violence doesn't work for left-wing causes. The left wing is by nature bad at organizing and following orders and those are what you need to make violence work. Sooner or later any left-wing movement that uses violence turns into a right-wing movement when it inevitably gets taken over from inside by the right wingers.

The left wing is good at being right about basically everything but not good at violence. And that's not going to change because people who are right about things aren't good at following orders.

It’s called being in a cult. Dear leader can do no wrong. Trump is all powerful yet delivering a re-badged android phone is beyond his control.

Electric vehicles are at least useful.

They've had 22 years to figure this out, but now it's a crisis requiring a rush mission because nobody thought it was important enough to do something a year ago, or five, or ten.

Trump voters gave up friends and family and husbands and wives. It's tough to turn on Trump after giving up that much for the man

They will not receive the phone and they will not get their deposits back. The regulatory agencies that would punish Trump for doing that are run by Trump. I would have a laugh at their expense except it means those same regulatory agencies aren't going to protect anyone else from anything else..

Outside of banning the technology there isn't really a hell of a lot you can do. We are not going to build the capacity because that would require tax dollars from extremely wealthy people and those people run the country so no they're not going to pay for you to have electricity.

Our entire civilization is being slowly dismantled. But how about those trans girls in sports am I right? /s

Why would Obama do this!

The phone is only more secure than your server if you choose to setup your server so poorly. SELinux was introduced 25 years ago and is the mitigation here.

The size requirements of modern games have nothing to do with memory shortages and everything to do with abusing the fact that space was plentiful *TO OPTIMISE* gaming. For the most people few people give a shit if a game is 80GB or 120GB, but they give a lot of shits if the game is slower to load, if the game stutters while accessing assets (in both cases asset duplication can contribute to a larger size but also improved gaming performance), and people give a shit when their textures look like trash.

Not only that, you could do *MORE* back then. You could read data between tabs, leak memory from the rendering engine out to the browser itself, crash the entire browser, exploit one window from another. All those wonderful features you can't do anymore because those pesky programmers who simply hate optimisation decided to implement per tab process isolation, and tab isolated web assembly interpretation. I mean who even uses things like "security". How dare they break some of the functionality we all use - signed: malware writers.

Ironically for your rant, most of the "that unreal look" games actually have a surprisingly small disk and memory footprint compared to better looking games. Unreal is actually pretty damn frigging good at the thing you are complaining about.

So farm in a way that prices yourself out of what is currently an insanely cost conscious market? https://fortune.com/2025/05/07...

What other failing ideas do you have? I know, let's start a company dedicated to producing steam trains!

Several American citizens have been disappeared for several weeks at a time. So far all of them have turned up only slightly worse for wear but it keeps happening and eventually some of them will not turn up or if they do they will have permanent physical damage.

The problem isn't the population. Bedrock can handle more than that. London isn't sinking because of all the people (and London is huge!), it's sinking because the ice sheet that pressed the Highlands deep into the crust has been gone for the last 10,000 years, resulting in the entire island tilting back to where it naturally should be. You could move London's population into the Great Glen and it would not make the slightest difference - London would still be sinking. The ice sheets were a whole lot heavier than a few tens of millions of people.

(Ok, it would make a difference. If the rich people actually lived in Scotland, the transit system and public services would see a thousand percent improvement inside a week. If they were also forced to speak Gaelic, English would vanish in a month.)

Aquifers can be deep. The aquifer that supplies the town of Buxton in England is so deep that it takes rainfall 5,000 years to rech it.

Every place? Fascinating.

There are towns in England and Wales that have been occupied for the past 10,000 years. Manchester isn't the greatest place on Earth, but I'm really not convinced it's going to start sinking into the ground any time in the next thousand years. If "short term" is longer than the remaining lifespan of the human race, I am not convinced "short" is really the right word.

"Short term" is only meaningful if it's shorter than the time needed to take meaningful remedial action, and the time it would take to remediate the problem in Mexico City vastly exceeds the time it will take for the city to crumble into oblivion.

The sun will not explode in 4 billion years. It's far too small. It might well run out of hydrogen by then, but that will simply cause it to swell. If, in four billion years, we can't find a way to drift the Earth outwards to remain within the goldilocks zone, then we're a failure as a species. Of course, we might well have built a Dyson Ring by then. Although, to be honest, if we were going to do that, we'd want to find a gas cloud that was about to form a stellar nursary and head there. If we arrive as the proto star fires up, we've maximum resources in the easiest possible form (a dust cloud, so no mining needed and minimal processing required), can build the Dyson Ring or Dyson Sphere by the time the star really gets going, and have another ten to fifteen billion years.