All correct. Don't forget that also the US was reaping vast amounts of cash from allied nations repaying loans, which benefited the US and hampered the countries paying. I don't think we in the UK finished paying until something like 2006?

Everyone says that 'nobody wants to do those kind of jobs', and misses the fact that it's also a variable that could be altered. Those jobs being 'low value' is a societal opinion, and opinions can change. Do a promotional campaign valuing agriculture and manufacturing. Put up some government-funded starter homes reserved for those who take jobs in certain industries. Give those who want it (and have the academic credentials to do it) after 10 years a free-ride through university. Set up some defined-benefit pension schemes. Lots of options.

Tying healthcare to employment in the way that the US has is a mistake. You've destroyed the ability of people to participate in a free market to sell their services because they can't risk losing their healthcare. It also leaves you with a pool of unemployed people who could become productive if they got treatment for chronic conditions but can't get treatment because they are not employed.

Add to that the fact that everyone in the pipeline pads prices because it's going to be paid for via insurance, and it looks like a real mess. Oh, and direct marketing to the sick of expensive treatments that don't have a statistically meaningful impact on quality of life - that's another cash-syphon.

Their customers are the games companies, not the players. The players eyeballs are the primary product that they are selling to the games company, together with some packaging and installation technology that can be easily replicated.

That's not to say that you're wrong in any way.

You can go away from home without planning or stress about where you need to charge or how long it will take - most daily journeys are much shorter than the range of typical EVs. So it's more about how willing people are to be subservient to those who have told them to think of it as sacrificing freedom.

No it doesn't. It says 'if you notice a statistical bias in outcomes, think about where that may be coming from and address it if needed/possible" - that's it.

The definition that you've given is the one circulated to make people angry, fearful, and pliable. Use that information to judge the person who gave you that definition however you wish.

No, it's: without DEI you DON'T KNOW whether your interview pool is all-white because they were the best candidates out there or all-white because you've accidentally excluded some groups in choosing how you write the job-spec, how you advertise it, etc. DEI is just being aware of what things you need to think about. People are being told that thinking about things too deeply is bad.

As an example, they may wish to target schools in economically-poor majority-white areas where boys are under-represented in statistics of who goes on to gain a higher education qualification in computer science. It's a good use for the money in giving chances to people who could become outstanding coders given a chance, but this would risk all of the funding being clawed back.

It's not even that specific. It's analyse and document your processes while you think deeply about whether you are accidentally excluding or discouraging qualified candidates. You can phrase the same set of capabilities that you wish a candidate to have in different ways and cause a SIGNIFICANT shift in the gender balance of applicants. And most people don't know that they don't know that. The way you avoid never seeing some qualified candidates is through processes like DEI.

DEI is currently being used as a scare-term to keep a set of people frightened, angry, and manipulatable.

Ok. It was about 4 steps and I'm now flat on my back behind the sofa, tangled in a lot of yarn. I can't see the pixel. What now?

I'm absolutely fine with fracking as long as the company doing it is bound by contract to repair the geology if their work causes an unexpected impact on the water table. Still cheaper with the insurance to allow that kind of remediation included? It's not a fair comparison if you allow one side to externalise costs.

What if building new safer nuclear allows us to decommission the older, more dangerous nuclear that is 'in the mix' earlier?

It's entirely feasible for them to charge a micro-payment per post to rate limit the volume of material they have to monitor. They've chosen not to and the consequences of that choice should be on them.

Yes it is. This is a business that they have _chosen_ to set up to make a profit. They have the option to hire enough people to screen every single post, and to implement rate-limiting to ensure that the volume of posts remains manageable. This will cut into their profits so instead they wish to be absolved from some of the consequences of the business model they have chosen. It shouldn't be down to the government to legislate someone a viable business model.

This is no different than a company dumping known toxic waste into the environment and then wanting to have the responsibility for the environmental consequences legislated away.

They aren't even banning the sale of new ICE engines. The legislation mentions cars and vans. There is so much FUD being spread on the topic.

It's a prudent, conservative approach to targeting the sectors where easy changes are already possible. People who desperately need an ICE small vehicle for some niche reason can buy a new one in 2034 and drive it until it falls apart around 2054. There's then going to be a vast array of spares and seconds kicking around. It's a non-problem.