Everything in the visible universe is subject to lunar gravity now. That's how gravity works.

China is headed that way with their renewables. Ireland is planning for renewable hydrogen production as well.

I think it will probably only end up with relatively niche uses, but it's a useful option.

You're missing the point of the AP, and it's actual composition. I worked at a daily newspaper most of my way through undergrad and knew the ins and outs of the AP better than most.

The main use of the AP was to get international news to outlets who couldn't afford to place staff in places further away from their own location. A great example is any international war, though even big national events (9/11 being a great example) are also places where AP stories are valuable.

The AP carries very little editorial content. Yes there are a few editorial writers who publish there but the volume from them is minimal compared to the objective news reporting. Some people like to claim otherwise but that is from those who aren't actually looking at the body of work on ap.org.

Unfortunately the newspaper model is indeed dying. Many of us are lamenting it and we're not sure what solution could bring it back. Printed news was supported by advertising, both display ads and classified ads. In the 90s your local daily paper likely had 4-8 pages of classified ads, every day. Now the majority of that is on craigslist or facebook. On Sundays your paper had full color printed advertising inserts from over a dozen retailers; many of those retails have since gone out of business and many of the ones who remain don't advertise that way anymore. Online subscriptions can offset a small part of this, but only a small part. Online advertisements are blocked by most readers' browsers, so that isn't productive for newspapers in many cases either.

The tabloid and editorial "journalism" you refer to is successful because it does a better job of selling crap to its audience. Don't confuse it with the professionals at the AP.

The arms industry gets its money either way. What do you think our defense budget goes to?
Obviously for some country with a hibernating defense industry, it would make sense for the military industrial complex to try to start wars.
Here in teh good ol' US of A, there's no need. We're happy to vote for trillion dollar defense budgets year after year, and this war, like the others, isn't going to appreciable move that needle. It just means less shit will be thrown away.

I don't even know how to process this... You are objectively and definitionally incorrect. Is this a language barrier? Is English perhaps not your first language, and you're mixing up the definition of some hate-analogue in your language with the English version of the word?

hate (n):
1a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
1b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing
1c : a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred
2 : an object of hatred

hatred (n):
1a : extreme dislike or disgust : hate
2 : ill will or resentment that is usually mutual : prejudiced hostility or animosity

Please point on the doll where the big bad American hated you.

I make very good money (I live in an area where that's pretty normal).
My liquid assets have varied from less than $500 to almost 6 figures, mostly depending on how badly I'm letting it burn a hole in my pocket, so I'm inclined to agree.
The "doesn't have $500" measure is utterly meaningless without more information.
I'm not typing this on a $7,100 laptop because living expenses are kicking my ass, but I've spent some time in that category while being dumb.

Correct.

Hate to play the Devil's Advocate here, because I do agree that it's REALLY BAD for other reasons, economically- I don't see it.
I'd say the better argument is that we should be evolved enough now to know that a highly successful capitalist economy is maybe not the best goal for human happiness, even if it does seem, empirically speaking, to produce the most powerful economies on the planet.

We're going to have to add illiteracy and delusion to your list of faults, I'm afraid.

1) That's not what hateful means.
2) That's not what I did. I listed my reasons for discounting your opinion. It was because it was ignorant, not because you were foreign.

Ya, sorry. That's idiocy.
Bush was a dumbfuck, but unlike the current dumbfuck, at least he wasn't dumb enough to think there was "plunder" to be had in the oil reserves of an occupied country.

It's 20-fucking-26, and dumbasses are still spreading the fucking "lives for oil" meme?
It didn't pass the smell test then, and it really doesn't now, especially when we actually have a President fucking dumb enough to say, "we're going to take their oil!" and every single fucking US company in that trade goes, "uhhh, in what universe is that profitable for us?"

It's like the dude watched people like you say that shit, and actually thought it was backed by reality. It's fucking astonishing.

*companies

I'll grant your argument more weight if you can demonstrate cui bono.
Who gets rich off of knocking over the Venezuelan regime? The Iranian regime?

The cui is just some asshole President, and the benefit isn't economical (at least until he tries to sell President of Iran hats).
At least with Bush, there were oil connections (and more so with Cheney, really), even if all of the conspiracy theories as to cui bono there simply didn't pass critical muster.

I'm not going to say that resource wars aren't a thing, but some petty wannabe dictator going after easy targets looking to stack his grandiosity under some misinformed idea of how oil economy works isn't an example of what you're claiming.
There's a reason no US countries jumped up to take stewardship over Venezuelan oil.
If you were to count Venezuelan oil as a US 2P reserve, it won't become a 1P reserve within our lifetimes- i.e., economically exploitable by us.

Na. That money doesn't flow for shit.
The amount you need doesn't scale linearly with the amount you have.
It's a dead end.

Ya, at the point where the rich are virtual nation states, my original post goes right out the window.

lolwut?
Iran and Venezuela are nothing but some old fuck trying to make a legacy for himself, and being literally fucking dumb enough to think "we can take their oil!!!", because that's what the dumb motherfuckers he surrounded himself with told him that Bush did.
The economic value of those 2 countries is 4 squirts of piss in the grand scheme of things.

The paper was metaphorical ;)
The form of money doesn't really matter.
There was never a [practical] limit to how much you could make when it came to fiat currency. That's the brilliance and the danger of the system.

Need for wars of plunder? Gonna have to roll my eyes right there.
You really think Iran and AI are connected?
Global debt is around $340 trillion USD.
You think Cheetoh is waving his cock around in the hopes of gleaning $40 trillion from a country with a GDP 1/10th that of the fucking State of California?

I don't think you can classify my response as hateful.
At worst, I pointed out that your criteria were subjective, and that worse- they were based on ignorance.
There's no hatred in that. I look forward to the day where you're less politically brain damaged.

Cryogenic has bee used for the ground tests, so presumably it was here too.