Coincidentally, this popped up on my feed last night: https://www.dw.com/en/conflict...

I completely understand your pov and think it's perfectly valid.

Curiously, this article appeared in my feed just tonight: https://www.dw.com/en/conflict...

Sure, but then we never really had a WW2, or even a WW1. It's all just a continuation of the wars for the succession of Austria.

I get what you're saying.

But IMHO, with such - veiled or open - conflicts happening right now between US, Russia, China, Ukraine, EU, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, i'd still argue that we're witnessing a de facto world war. Great part of the world is already involved, or dealing with serious consequences of current affairs.

Also - and this is just an educated guess - I see the UN "imploding" in the near future, which could be a repetition of WWII.

WWIII already started for some time, now. The first indications were the resurgence of ultranationalism, fascism and colonialism around the globe.

The question is: will it remain in its current state of cold war, with conflicts erupting here and there, or will it eventually escalate into a wider, full-fledged conflict?

This is a very ignorant take.

First of all, we still have our papers. Digital IDs are used to access public services on a much easier and secure way.

Secondly, your extreme scenario absolutely doesn't depend on digital IDs to happen. Actually, it's already happening for many immigrants who are having their visas/authorizations revoked.

No, it's not.

We have digital IDs in Brazil and it's mantained by a state-owned company. This situation would never have ocurred here.

Not only US. Almost all new cars today, from any country (US, Japan, Germany, France...), are connected. And very probably, all have some Chinese software.

Even understanding this, it seems evident to me that:

1) This is not the reason why this bill is being proposed.
2) Pure and simple protectionism is not the best way to deal with the situation.

The side effect of this attitude will possibly only be to dissociate US industry from the rest of the world, setting it back technologically.

In my view, it is necessary to define very clear objectives, create the necessary conditions, and demand strategic alignment from companies in order to promote a return on public investment. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of what the US is apparently doing currently.

The usual 5% or 10% are becoming fewer and fewer people, due to the large number who have already been laid off. Soon, 5% will mean like, 2 people.

General public and media absolutely already started doing this for some time.

Some of you may not be aware of this story, but through the 80s–00s, Microsoft famously didn't enforce anti-piracy laws in poorer countries.

The reason is that it was better for them to lose some money, but to have Windows widely distributed and become the de facto standard for operating systems worldwide. After that, they could finally enforce it and profit.

I would bet that the big AI companies are basically following the same model.

30 million illegal immingrants?

Blatant lie!

Even conservative think tanks put the number between 11-14 million people.

https://www.pewresearch.org/ra...

Since WWII, Switzerland has transformed itself into one of the world's leading hubs for global companies and organizations. From the world's largest banks to the UN and FIFA, the country is home to countless entities employing hundreds of thousands of foreigners.

None of this was by chance, but by design. This strategy helped consolidate the country as one of the richest in the world, which in turn attracts more people seeking a better life.

Currently, about half of the immigrants living in Switzerland come from the countries bordering it: Germany, Italy, and France. Annually, about 3 out of 4 immigrants come from the European Union itself.

But, as is typical, far-right parties always need to find a scapegoat for their power ambitions. And, as is even more common, immigrants are always the most visible and easiest target.