Because "The American Way" means something entirely different today than it used to mean in the 1980s. It's nothing to aspire to. Not even remotely.

40% of Americans have medical debt.

I couldn't even put a number on in for Europe, the very concept of that is all but unknown in Europe.

He's using a version of made-up numbers.

How about real numbers? E.g. how many average yearly salaries do you need in 2025 (vs. 2005, for instance) to buy an average house?

Or how many big macs can you buy from.an average salary?

Because US economy is leaving behind major parts of its population at a rapid pace. Higher GDP doesn't translate to better standard of living, it translates to fewer people hoarding even more wealth.

You don't become wealth by being right, either. In fact, being right or wrong has nothing to do with being wealthy.

Generational wealth has.

You may want to rethint the meaning of that number.

Broken on Android Fennec (Firefox) too, Menu won't retract.

You're wrong, and the reason you're wrong os because you're projecting your own resource consumption mechanism (where 90+% of the environmental cost aassociated with your person goes towards your everyday life) onto the megarich.

But with them, barely 0.000x% count towards their personal consumption habits. The largest part of their energy footprint is the very thing that makes them rich in the first place: 8 mostl wealthy people in the world.have as much as the bottom 50%.

All this wealth had to be generated somewhere. Millions of people had to drive to work for that. Millions of factories had to overproduce, oversell, under-delicet quality etc, to produce that excess wealth.

That's about 1.3% for my example, BTW, given the bottom 50% are really poor; but if you shift the thresholds a bit (e. top 1% holds about 50%, top 0.1% close to 20%).

That's excess wealth that we didn't have to produce. Everyone except foe the top 0.1% would be living exactly the same life as now, if we produced only 4/5-ths of what we did.

That's where the megarich's environmental footprint is. And yes, they carry all the blame for it, and yes, they continue to stack the cards such as to keep ot that way, and yes, they're also fully to blame for that. It's not like rest of us wantto working hours, drive long commutes, and buy a washing machine every 7 years becsuse that's what they're made to last instesd of 35.

Ah, so THAT'S how you quit!

"Toxic" or "trash" doesn't have a meaning per se associated with it... just a diffuse feeling of doubleplusungood.

The specific details are for the reader (i.e. you) to fill out, or your opponent in a disagreement.

I spent 30 years in the field. I fully agree with your parent poster, that was spot on.

Except JSON doesn't have a schema.

(Yes, I know of JSON Schema, but it was built and designed after the fact, while XML schema is part of the standard.)

Besides, wrong syntax will fuck up every format - JSON too.

That's actually against the GDPR, too. Google got grilled for it recently.

Opting out isntallowed to be substantially more complicated than opting in. We're still left with anti-patterns, so it's not a level playing field by any definition. But at least we have a reasonable chance.

You got it backwards.

You regulate not because the companies would otherwise hurt themselves, you do because other wise they'd hurt others.

The correct simile would be "we aren't cattle, we mustn't be treated as such."

Well, you need to sync before you can effectively control, don't you?

Ah, fellow circadian nerd :-)

And with high-CRI LEDs, and then slowly dimming the maximum allowed intensity from 100% down to 20% between 6pm and 11 pm, and only allowing it up at 100% @ 6500K again at 6am the morning.

The true legacy of civilization :-D