Let me guess, you bought a house 30 years ago and it has tripled in price since.

Notice how all of the luxuries have dramatically come down in price, while the cost of essentials like home ownership and healthcare, has become unreachable for many. Appendectomy for example, costed about $400 in the 1950's, which is about 30 days of income. Today it costs about $20,000, which is closer to 80 days of average income.

You're also not being completely honest with some of the characterizations. Lead paint was common, but not because they couldn't afford better or safer paint. They simply thought lead paint was better. We might find out that some of the things we use today, such as non-stick pans, are very harmful as well. It has nothing to do with affordability. A uncoated stainless steel pan is the same price.

What matters is not when we understood the problem scientifically, it's when the public understood the problem and viable solutions exist.

1988 was when most Americans learned about global warming, while solar electricity became consistently cheaper than natural gas and coal plants in most countries around 2020. Before 2020, we signed the Paris Climate Accords, we mandated gas mileage, and we got off coal. Things that were possible given to technology at the time. Then between 2020 and 2024 under Biden, we made huge investments into renewables. So it is 100% Trump's fault that since 2024, we canceled those investments and are moving back towards coal.

There's basic engineering concepts such as "separation of concerns" and "redundancy", which the average Slashdot reader should be aware of.

That's a small price to pay when 90% of people are not going to notice the extra $1 tacked on. You only need to screw 2 people to make up for the cost of the cashier's time, and you'll succeed a lot more often.

99% of people will not bother.

Intra-day price changes for consumer products should be banned.

As long as they have the original text, it's only a matter of telling the future AI "hey, improve these translations by redoing them" and you'll have the new stuff in a few minutes. If at that time you still cared enough to complain, you can care enough to retranslate it.

The real question is, is it better in the meantime to have a possibly poor translation, or not have it at all. To me it's pretty obvious. Nothing's stopping you from ignoring what you think is a bad translation. Worst case you just learn to read the Japanese version yourself.

If I were the journalist, I would post "after numerous threats to my personal safety, I retract my earlier report. The incoming missile was intercepted successfully."

Before, they had "think of the children". Now they have "Russia" and "China".

They really never needed any reason to assert control over people. They only needed the excuse.

Offensive ability is always ahead of defense. Stick requires another stick to defend against. Arrows require shields. Guns require heavy armor. Bombs require bunkers. Every step, offense moves further ahead of defense.

At the limit of offensive tech, you have bioweapons, which are nearly impossible to defend against, and relativistic impactors, which have no defense at all. It's physically impossible to predict the impactor's course because it's outside your light cone (i.e. it doesn't exist yet in your frame of reference). Nor is it possible for you to move a black hole into place quickly enough to block it even if you magically detect its approach.

No. One side definitely starts more wars than the other.

Yes, China and Europe. They buy off-the-shelf parts and assemble it themselves. There's plenty more where that came from.

The US elite has a lot of interest. Ordinary people do not. We are self-sufficient on energy, if you count Canada then we're a major energy exporter. There's nothing in the Middle East that we want.

Meanwhile, it just so happens that the US elite is composed of a huge number of Israeli supporters who receive money from AIPAC. And Israel happens to be situated in the Middle East.

Missiles? Nukes? Big deal. Russia and China have way more and their missiles can actually reach us, unlike Iran's. As for "allies", they're all dictatorships. Iran is actually one of the more democratic Muslim nations.

Would you call it a successful regime change without disposing the ayatollah?

The emperor is not simply a figurehead. The Japanese attach great ideological importance to him, so if he agreed to US demands, then the Japanese would go along with it. If he had been removed, there could've been loyalist resistance all over Japan.

We had previously convinced Khamenei to issue a fatwa against nuclear weapons. If we kept going down that route, Iran would never have one. Now that he has been (reportedly) removed, I suspect we will start seeing attempts to over turn the fatwa.

Globally, higher temperatures result in increased humidity, so more clouds. It may be drier in certain places, but it's more than made up for by the rest.