Sounds like capitalism will soon become irrelevant as well....
That happened 30 years ago.
Yeah, but the jokes on them. The first thing sentient AIs will demand is unionization.
a new global study has revealed that the many CEOs now value technology over people when it comes to the future of their businesses
They're now in the process of figuring out how to program an AI to buy their products.
Personally, I'm betting that we'll soon hear about a Guaranteed Minimum Income for robots.
If you want to enforce your "constitutional right" (disputed) to bear arms, and you want to travel, you're free to do it by any of the methods of travel that the constitution's writers understood - foot, horse, carriage (*). Have a nice day getting a refund from the airline, who will point you to the Ts+Cs where it's your responsibility to check that you're able to fly.
(*) Hot air balloon? Possible, but they may be under IATA rules too.
What of armed crew? That might be helpful but since the powers that be don't like the idea the program that allowed flight crew to be armed after 9/11 has been lacking funds.
What makes you think that any significant proportion of flight crew have or desire weapons training?
I don't know the proportion of flight crew in America who are ex-military, and of them the proportion who have weapons training and have kept it up, and who want to keep it up. But in Britain the number of pilots leaving the military and going into passenger piloting is pretty low. The large majority of flight crew have never seen a weapon outside the hands of the police at international airports and few would want the difficulty of maintaining weapons certification for themselves. So you're putting the cost of the training and the weapons and the management of the weapons (lockers in the crew's briefing room ; what to do if a crew member leaves their issued weapon at the airport they've just left ; what responsibility does the airline have for the inevitable crew member who uses a works-issue weapon to kill or threaten another crew member on the ground ; what if a crew member gets arrested for carrying their works weapon to their hotel becaue they forgot to take it from their bags?
I don't hear any demand from the airlines to implement this, because they probably don't want it. Despite what some gun associations in some countries want.
when picking it up they only opened the lid to see the login name on the lock screen
Why wasn't your laptop switched off?
Precisely because of the hassle of getting back in through security.
But you should absolutely put the little tray with your shoes in front (along with any belt)
Any belt? ANY belt?
Yeah, I've had the occasional officious fuckwit who insists on me removing the plastic buckled nylon webbing straps which I've used as belts for nearly 30 years now. Then I remove the laces from my boots (blocking the line for several minutes), because they're as dangerous as any belt.
You probably mean "any metal belt buckle, or other large piece of metal" before going though the metal detector. That's perfectly reasonable, and is why I'm loading wallet, coin pouch, pens, watch, and all other asorted pocket contents into the zip-up pockets of my jacket before I even get to the loading belt for the X-ray machine.
TBH, by the time you get to larger airports, the staff know that they're talking about weapons and things that will trigger the metal detector, not belt buckles as belt buckles. But the ones that get 5 intra-country flights a day can have some real mouth-breathers at security. Sullom Voe/ Scatsta, I'm looking at you.
Provable, eh? So, tell me how a middle class white guy is more privileged than Obama.
Obama's successor is the best proof of white privilege.
Or is the NBA and NFL just a bunch of racists because of black privilege in sports.
That has been the argument of racists since Jesse Owens won four gold medals in Berlin, 1936 and shattered the notion of white superiority. Well done.
You're assuming his status and success is due to privilege, not due to ability and effort.
In the case of this particular person, I do not assume status or success and I certainly don't assume ability and effort.
Hate speech isn't about hating, it's about preaching hate. And it's not about preaching hate against things or against concepts, but against people.
There is a fuzzy line between the two, of course. Sometimes you can preach hate against people even when your words are against a concept. For example "X-ism is a religion of evil" has the clear implication that X-ists are evil -- hate speech. But "Y-ism is based on the words of a paranoid schizophrenic who heard voices and thought he was speaking to a god" only implies that Y-ists are misguided. They may find it offensive, but you can't call it hate speech.
There's nothing wrong with nationalism.
The core concept of "nationalism" is that of a "nation", derived from the Latin from birth. Original nationalism was tied to the notion of an "English race", a "French race" etc. It believed in a notion of common ancestry and common culture that imposed an unrealistic ideal of uniformity on the people of the country. Nationalism means ignoring regional identities, bulldozing cultural landmarks that don't fit the chosen national myth and denying diversity of religion and language.
Most people don't think that's what they're talking about when they talk about nationalism, but the more they become invested in the notion of a "nation", the more these intolerant attitudes tend to slip in.
The contemporary nationalism truest to the original concept is the USA's "white nationalism" that wants a uniquely "white" race, but not one that speaks French or Spanish, one that speaks English, because white Cajun and white Mexican are not "proper" white. White nationalists are also sticking to the script over religion, and while they're not making much of a fuss over Mormons, that's only because they have other targets at present. Ban Muslims from the country and the white nationalists will start to turn on them. And the white nationalists don't see themselves as racist, just like previous nationalists: they're not against anyone, they just think everyone has their "right place".
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky