So, you prompted an LLM to provide you with arguments against Capitalism and thought that was meaningful?

Nobody makes better hardware for this than Nvidia. Nobody makes better software architecture for it either. Their graphics drivers keep getting worse, but the percentage of their income which comes from graphics keeps falling so that makes sense. It is quite unfortunate for those of us depending on them, of course, but makes all the sense in the world right now.

Hint: it's not a dollar amount

You're right, we should be collecting that methane and using it to heat homes in Alaska. That's fuel just going to waste.

Water could be redirected back into the seabed, but what about the farms that water is irrigating?

You don't have the rule of law if you change the law whenever you want to punish someone for doing well. New rules were created to punish Google and other American companies just for being the most popular. Even if that wasn't a temporary condition they don't need to do anything about (remember My Space? Yahoo?), punishing those companies doesn't do a damn thing to create a viable competitor.

I bet you have the parties mixed up. One party is 30% further from the center than it was in 2008, which was already much further from the center than it was in 1994. The other Party swung back and forth from 1994-2014, and is now 3% further out than it was in 2008.

The Democrats are the one that moved 30% further from the center. Everyone else is waaay to the right of you, but only because you ran away.

Not all old people are conservatives, and even the ones who are don't deserve to die.

The reaction was necessary and proportionate. The situation was fluid. Monitoring had been lost, so it was not known exactly how bad it was. Then containment buildings started exploding.

To this day, much of that area is not decontaminated. It's not safe to live there, unless you are very careful. Which in practice means children can't live there, the elderly can't live there, and anyone would be living on edge the whole time. Repeated attempts to decontaminate the area have failed, and there is no known solution, at any cost.

That's one of the reasons why nuclear power can't get insurance, and the government has to cover it.

No, I think he means what he said. The EU should build its own competitors, but they can't be forcing Google to foot the bill and supply them with the data to do it. Right now, it just looks like the EU is being greedy and spiteful, punishing Google for succeeding at something they haven't.

with a quarter trillion than putting a shitload of people out of work.

Go ahead and build your own companies. That's a good thing for everyone. Stop trying to force American companies to do it for you. The EU wants Google to provide Europe with the tools to compete with it. That's wrong. Build them yourself.

Only if you simply ignore the people who died in the evacuation that resulted from it. Their lives matter too, at least to me.

Or, that the very same principal is being discarded, as Google's products did win on merit. Note that the EU isn't trying to break Google up, they're trying to make Google support European companies and share valuable data with them. A tacit admission that their services can't compete on merit.

I can't fault the EU for trying to promote domestic businesses, they should do that. I do fault them for trying to do it by forcing American companies to do it for them and charging billions for the privilege.

When partisanship meets ignorance, silly things are said. And that, was a very silly thing to say.

Well, Aristotle formulated it this way:

Pure systems - Monarchy, rule by one; Aristocracy, rule by the best few; and The Republic, rule by all.
Corrupt systems - Dictatorship/Tyranny, corrupt rule by one; Oligarchy, rule by a corrupt powerful few; and Democracy, mob rule. (Dictatorship is a Roman idea so Aristotle didn't use that word).
Tribalism is a primitive system. Theocracy is a rule-by-few system, so Aristocracy or Oligarchy, depending on goodness.

Any political system is going to fall into one of those three broad categories - rule by one, rule by a few, rule by many/all. Representative Republics (we now also use the word Democracy for this, though Aristotle would be spinning in his grave), are indirect rule by all as we all select a few to do the day-to-day. You could look at it as a hybrid, but I'd say that since the power ultimately rests with the People, it is still a Republic.

Any form of government can claim to be a Republic, but that doesn't make it true. Kim Jong Un can say he is ruling on behalf of the people who elect him, but we all know that's a load of crap.