Think gated community dwellers, rich elderly, and other chronically afraid people.

It is all about "winning" but not for US companies or China. By making everyone else lose, Trump is winning.

Actually, Trump is not a singular cause. He was not the first. Back under reagan, he killed a great deal of our civilian oriented R&D saying that private business can do it , while moving some to DARPA. Thankfully, DARPA still funded basic science.
Then W did more cuts, but pushed a lot of DARPA spending in UNI over to companies and forced cuts in basic science.
Biden also did major changes and pushed funding to go from merit based to DEI.
Trump is just a continuation of this and not even the worst ( reagan or W were the worst ).

Have no idea what a real city is like. Get back to us when you've visited somewhere you have to wear shoes.

If the price hurts, just cancel the account. It's a want not a need.

I have no such accounts because I've better uses for money than entertainment subs.

Worked for chess.

The logic is economic autarky -- the belief that we're always better off having complete political sovereignty over every part of our supply chains than having to depend on imports for anything.

This is likely also behind Trump's trade war with Canada. His demands with Canada aren't about discirimatory tariffs -- those were negotiated away with NAFTA then re-negotiated in his first term. His demands are now infringe on Canadian sovereignty, to give US control of Canada's external trade policy, and even on its internal markets (e.g., the use of French in Canadian internal commerce). Symbolically, that's why he wants to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America". HIs establishment of US control over the Venezuelan oil industry is his greatest foreign policy achievement -- although it's not clear he understands the legal limits on what he can do with their money.

There's a foreign and military policy angle to this too: Taiwan is absolutely critical to the US economy, so we are absolutely committed to defend them if China invades. Semiconductor autarky would mean it's not our problem.

The problem with autarky is that even if it's a good idea (which economists don't believe), you can't conjure it into existence overnight. It will take many years, possibly decades for the US to replace the Taiwan's semiconductor industry. In effect, the administration is proposing to inflict the very damage on the US economy that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inflict.

And, once the US has voluntarily self-inflicted that damage, China would be free to invade Taiwan.

I suspect you were just asked to be nice, and through a combination of spectrum OCD and insufficient cognitive therapy, you decided somehow you were being asked to do something wrong.

So you helped elect an ignorant sociopath. Congrats on that. Maybe you should have attended more of those cognitive therapy sessions.

What other numbers make that 48 impressive or otherwise?

Your king will ensure you and your wife will be subjects of struggle sessions soon enough. Worrying your pretty little head about disclaimers and other stupid shit will seem quaint.

Enjoy.

but ICE and troops hanging around poling stations and selectively harassing people

What's the problem?

If you're not a citizen, you aren't allowed to vote....why would you be anywhere near a polling station if not a citizen or worse....an illegal alien?

and contrary to popular belief, the government does not pay for that data

It really depends. ATT makes substantial amounts on their LEO customers. I understand Verizon has a similar program, and after Worldcom, all smaller the telecom companies fell in line.

Give Google and Zuckerbook and the others a decade of mature market profits and it'll get around to optimizing lines of business like that, too. They just make more money on other stuff now so they don't bother.

Don't forget Costco. As far as I know the only public company doing so.

Like most companies, Apple has been ethical when it suited their interests. There's always been a slimy side there - Jobs cheated Woz before Apple even existed.

No, What Apple lost was taste.

They used to profit from producing products they'd want to use. Now they make profit-maximizing devices.

I'd argue that the OSes are starting to suffer, too. I mean, bugs are up again, but that's always been cyclic. But I feel like they're losing coherence, too. And a lot of subsystems more technical users like are rotting or being made much more difficult to work with (Gatekeeper and shell scripts, for instance). (I also find it ugly now, but that's subjective and it has has ugly iterations before, too.)

Anyway, yeah, Apple will make a ton of money for a long time to come. But I'm pretty sure it is losing its sense of taste. It might make the most popular and most profitable phone, but they aren't trying to make the phone people want anymore.

Craving intimacy is an evolved emotional weakness brought about by a species naturally selected drive to reproduce. Consider that carefully before responding including every answer driven by emotion (which when un-mastered is a self-control flaw). Species can have no other reason to exist but perpetuating the group. The individual exists for that and cannot exist for anything else or different for evolution is not a choice.

Craving intimacy results in a wide variety of psychological problems many of which result in toxic, often violent conduct including sexual assault (and often, homicide to conceal same).

Not everyone will get conventional intimacy and so pretending is a lie. Not everyone has the option to become desirable. Efforts to do so include damaging surgery for "looksmaxing".

That demonstrates the desire for intimacy is now a bug not a feature, as the grotesquely large global population also demonstrates by driving high poverty rates. Quality of life does not scale but the opposite.

Alternate options which produce the same result are useful and to the degree they succeed, effective.
They are harmless to others and pleasing to those so satisfied and sated. Sentimental objections should be seen for what they are, silly.

BTW I was (I'm now ancient and out of that game) conventionally attractive to both sexes and had a long, loving marriage until death did us part so none of this comment is motivated by butthurt at exclusion for I was not excluded.

Most of "humanity" is a collection of traits which do not benefit the individual and are often toxic (including drive to deny they're toxic). Redirecting drive for intimacy in those who would be silly to pretend it's an option is a kindness. I don't need it but my personal needs are irrelevant. I do not pretend others are me for projection is lazy thinking.

Society would be better served by contented, happy humans when that state can be easily afforded. Harmless technology could replace toxic, socially destructive gratification techniques like prostitution. Cravings exist and will continue to exist as they're not a matter of choice. Sating them in modern, less socially toxic ways WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE COMPETITION is the logical choice. Competition has many beneficial uses, but winners outnumber losers so best if the second can opt out. It really is that simple however intensely naive idealists object.