Sadly, it's what enough people have been told that they want, and they believe it. To me it's a generational failure of public education to have a population that is so easily sold against their own direct interest.

Good point - good science and use of resources would be for the HHS to announce a study to find out whether sacrificing things to gods makes it rain. After all, like you said, we'd never be here we didn't stop questioning literally everything over and over until the end of time.

I'm not going to believe you, because you're comparing a Chevy Bolt which is a small car to an SUV. I get what you're saying, but American's tastes for owning a large vehicle that is much cheaper to own and doesn't need filling up .. might win. How would they know? They literally don't have access to, or a neighbor who has what China is producing. You think it's an EV issue - I think it's that Americans just dont yet get how cheap cars could be. Obviously this is all intertwined with Americans thinking "We make the best stuff, and if we don't, we need to cut ourselves off from international markets so we're forced to relearn it" .. making cars is a national identity thing.

It's okay. American exceptionalism is a thing, and it is/was well earned. But I very much recommend Americans keep working on not thinking they're at any kind of leading edge anymore when it comes to mass produced commodity products.

seek therapy

Think about that for a moment.

I think it's safe to assume that any agreement in which Canada stipulated that Chinese EVs can/must be sold in the Canadian market would include needing to meet regulatory requirements both Canada and the US have. (The dip in cross border travel notwithstanding, a car you cannot drive in the US from Canada would be orders of magnitude harder to sell to Canadian consumers.)

I imagine China would not have a problem with this, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Selling cars to Canadians would represent an excellent opportunity to expose American consumers to Chinese EV vehicles on the ground via visiting Canadians. That's a kind of exposure they have not been able to have with the current USA/Canadian market barriers.

China produces vehicles for a ton of markets. Meeting the regulations of those markets is not something new to them.

Cartels still have huge amounts of firearms, including machine guns.

Hahahahaaha. Haha. Ha. Yeah, I wonder where they get them from?

"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, 94,000 weapons were recovered from Mexican drug cartels in the five years between 2006 and 2011, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent, according to Jim Moran -- come from the United States." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Can we describe the vaccines themselves as golden? As in .. made of gold? That seems to be one of the few things that gets Trump's interest.

Anyone who bets against "Leslie will take X action" when Leslie can participate in the betting is, indeed, a real loser.

The problem I have with people who think compulsive/poor gamblers only hurt themselves and just "get what they deserve" is that compulsive/poor gamblers steal money from people around them to feed their problem/disease, and also have dependents who are in no position to shield themselves from the consequences of those actions.

As usual, if every person was an island, life would seem much more "fair" and simple, but people are not islands. As a society, we hold immense value in being able to do certain drugs, and so fine, we accept that collateral damage will occur. But what is the societal upside of allowing a company to exploit "real losers" in this case?

The entire point is you can argue over the definition, so if there's an argument to be had, what do you expect when betting on it? One can't argue about a number, but we can sure argue over what is the definition of the word "invasion". Yet another reason why prediction markets are bound for shit like this. I cannot imagine why somebody would choose to bet over something in which the book holder gets to decide what constitutes a successful prediction (I mean, other than being a compulsive gambler, of course .. just another industry taking advantage of people who have problems to exploit)

Except insiders are insiders not just because they have inside information but because they have *influence* on events leading to price changes. What you're doing is advocating for the legalization of yummy conflicts of interests which pits people's mission for an organization against their own influence on manipulating future events for personal profit.

Sounds weapons grade stupid to me.

You dont make multiplayer games for a living. Please stop talking, it's embarassing ... for you.

The Turing test (which involves having a 1 to 1 conversation with an AI agent) has fuck all to do with astroturf posts, dummy.

Not by a long shot. Unsafe is scoped. 20% of Rust packages may use unsafe, but the amount of code in unsafe sections is far far far lower. Unsafe means "I accept the risk of doing unsafe things" but because it's scoped, just because a package uses Unsafe, it's still benefiting from the memory safety of bounds checking and borrow checking 99% of the time.

That's a far far cry from "it's just the same thing as doing it in C"

Usually with our money... Right and Left = Divide and conquer. No option options. I stopped trusting any of them decades ago. ;-)

That's the entire goal of flooding the zone with shit. Trusting nobody is not the smart position I suspect you consider it to be.