Right now, we're noticing that Chinese companies are offering us exploitative deals, and we don't like it, and think that tariffs will fix it. But with tariffs in place, we will find that now it's American companies that are offering us the exploitative deals, but they can charge more now, because they're insulated from outside competition. What I'm saying is that intranational capitalism is just as sleazy and brutal as international capitalism - only less efficient, because it's less competitive.

I agree with you about NATO states paying for mercenaries to defend Ukraine. There are many experienced fighters in Africa and the Middle East, and it's likely that their services could be bought at a reasonable price. Without more soldiers in the field, Ukraine's front is doomed to collapse.

I love AI and I would and could pay for it if I had to, but why would I pick OpenAI to pay? Their product is not really better than their competitors' products, and sometimes it's clearly worse. They have the advantage of being the first mover in their field, and that gives them inertia with low-information customers - the new AOL.com. But apart from that, they have huge debts and not much else to distinguish them. Their best employees had left, and their former partners have become wary of the way they operate. Projections of their future profitability must be based on the expectation that their AI will figure out some better business plan than what the OpenAI humans have come up with!

So now China is making too many electric cars and solar panels, compared to domestic demand. Their solution was to export that stuff. Now we want to impose tariffs on those things, so that global demand for Chinese stuff is artificially depressed. But when China loses markets for their stuff, what will they make with their comically overbuilt production capacity? Not solar panels or clean cars, but weapons. It turns out tariffs don't stop the "export" of bombs and missiles and attack drones to Taiwan.

Really good comment. I think I basicallly already thought this, but the way you put it is clearer than how I was thinking about it, so thanks!

Does the summary not state

AI generated reader letters would either be a fraud *or* a secondary AI reading the newspaper, and sending it a letter. I'm pretty sure newspapers generally are not supposed to create their own reader letters.

Not only is this old news, it has also already been debunked a few times. This road was already planned a long time ago, way before the summit was even appointed. So yes, the news is that they felled a forest to build a road, but dragging the climate summit into this is just a trumpian naarrative

To me this suggests that the toxins are released into the water within 1 minute, and very limited amounts leech out afterwards. Would this not suggest that a proper pretreatment would address the toxicity? Also, it would indicate that re-using these containers is fairly safe

Editors, bacteria is plural. I think you mean [a species of bacteria] if you must. The singular is [bacterium], but that tends to indicate a single organism.

Also known as tying up loose ends⦠youâ(TM)d be doing russia and china a favour. You donâ(TM)t think Putin or Xi care about the human lives do you?

I must say the term "WALL-E" was the first thing i thought of

Or you could argue that Apple could afford tax lawyers and know exactly what gamble they were taking by selecting Ireland and its too-good-to-be-true conditions.

I do not understand why everyone thinks Apple did not see this as a business risk and took the gamble. I'm quite sure they knew *exactly* what the EU tax laws are and what they were getting into

TO my knowledge C code is also valid C++ code. I do not think C# is valid C code or vice versa. So saying they are equally different seems incorrect to me

TO my undertanding C# is to C what Javascript is to Java.... the syntax is a little similar, the application scope and the performance is very different. Is it fair to collapse C# with C?