Just collect your yuan, and declare yourself the winner for refusing to answer. At this point, I see an intelligent person who is afraid to answer the question, perhaps related to where he is posting from, and who is paying him.

Your answer merely shows your narrative, And really, it is a simple question, that you refuse to answer. I say remove America from teh equation, you try multiple times to steer it back to Trump.

Usually you are pretty intelligent and insightful. Are you perhaps collecting yuan for your statements? I mean seriously, it is just a pointed hypothetical

It is not difficult to understand that it is a hypothetical that makes a point that there has always been a dominant country. That humans always get involved with others, often in Warfare. Does not matter if it is the British Empire, the failed attempt by Europe and Japan in the 1940's that led to the US becoming dominant, or the Roman Empire, or the Egyptians, Abashevos, the Hittites or Assyrians to name a few. It was always a "smaller" world, but some group was always willing to impose their will.

Now with this - My own answer - If the USA disappears overnight, China will replace it. See how easy that was?

peace out.

Communism brings the survivor conditions to you!
no need to travel.

There ya go! Right to the misogyny claim. Most very respectfully, you need to stop using that as your initial attack.

This was on a college campus - do you work on a college campus? There are quotas and preferences, and one way to think, Sorry that you believe that any discussion of the viability of those things means that the questioner hates women. Shame on you.

Before going further, your response is illustrative of a huge part of the problem. Because it is emblematic of a system where utter compliance is demanded, and castigation is the best you can hope for, career destruction is not unusual. And yes, there were two dynamics at play. Those hired under the quota/checkbox were allowed to pick and choose what they would do, and what they would not.

And despite your claims I hate women, indeed, I was at some level an enabler, because I would do the things they effectively refused to do. Travel, dangerous work, come in early, stay late, deal with the directorate. Is that hatred of women? They could pick and choose. But I did what I did because I am a professional.

Next note, I worked in efforts to recruit young women into STEM positions. This was in the first decade of this century, so we're talking GenZ kids. One of the most depressing parts of that were how badly it failed. We had the bring our daughters and sons to work day every year, And there were demonstrations of technology. My usual part aside from organizing was 3-D animation, which was a pretty popular demonstration. At the end of the day, we did a survey. The boys. were a standard mix, with a general attraction to STEM. The young ladies had very little interest in STEM, it was always at the bottom of the list. The scary part - at least for me - was the number one career the young ladies were choosing was Pop star Diva, usually followed by Lawyer. Veterinarian was also high on the list. Which I always considered STEM, but for some reason wasn't considered as such.

The women running the show would have a PM to discuss how things turned out. When asked, I had to be extremely careful, so I just said we need to stay the course, that full 50/50 representation was going to take time. When in fact, I came to believe that girls have their own minds, and are simply interested in what they are interested in, that vanishingly few become pop stars, so they decide on another path later in their journey. And they choose what they are interested in, despite the claims always blaming it on men.

And your rush to say I hate women is exactly why I didn't tell them what I thought - could have been career suicide. I say or write nothing hateful, and you cast me as the mortal enemy of all women. Exhibit b your honor.

And everything should be perfect. Your concept of anyone can do anything if they are trained is terribly flawed. I am really good at what I do. I have very high technical ability, have good social skills, and in addition, I am what is called a pattern weaver, https://katheryngreenleaf.subs... which makes me a extremely quick troubleshooter.

To put it bluntly, it is difficult to find a person with both excellent technical skills and social skills, and once you factor in pattern weaving, that can't be taught. No one is irreplaceable, but sometimes it takes two or more. And the reason I got called while on vacation, or when recovering from surgery, and on pain meds, was that they knew I was able to analyze their problem and fix it quickly.

My wife, who is pretty good about professionalism (she is one herself) while she was only a little annoyed by the vacation calls, was not happy at all about the recovery from surgery. Turns out they tried to get me to come in pre surgery as well, By that time I was shot up with some "I don't give a damn" med. But normal situations, she had no problem with my professionalism. All that said, I have been working post retirement with a group who are specifically there for one reason - they are tops in their field, employed for meritocracy, and we are men and women working at an extremely high level of competence without respect for our genitals. And the pay is very good. So perhaps you and I are in a different world. I merely note why I was on call so much, and it triggered you to call me a hater of women, because you are very intolerant. You think anyone can be trained to do anything - that's nice, but the hires were supposed to already know the things I did. And - no you can't train anyone to do anything.

The real pity is that those women who were hired for different reasons not necessarily related to competence, ended up crashing out when it came to downturns. Was that fair to them? One time, I got an email from one of the women who was terminated, wondering if there was ever a chance of re-hiring her. In it she said "I'll even do those other things you do." Kinda sad really, she knew that she was in a privileged position, while I was picking up the things she didn't want to do. But downturns are downturns, and the stuff I did was still required.

Have as good day sir, let no one question your narrative. I think you need it that way.

The use case is you have a decent size screen on a device that you can pocket. If you look at the latest foldables, they aren't much thicker than non-foldables. About as thick as an iPhone from a few generations ago.

They seem to have reached the point where the tech is reasonably mature and not excessively fragile. Now they just need to get the price down.

You might be fine with a dark alleyway in a bad area. A rape victim or soldier might be hugely traumatized and unable to cope with that same environment. Pain tolerance also... well everything.

Then you have gut biology... just traveling somewhere and getting exposed to local bacteria in the food/water can make you incredibly sick for quite a while until your biology adjusts. This example is not psychological, just to point out other relativity. Medical?? Your job doesn't require navy-seal intro classes so then you've got fat cubical workers who'd never be hired for a physical job even close to that...and you switched their job requirements for "fun" team building. You know, while some traumatic shit in the military may bond some people for life, it also fucks up a lot of people as well and makes them antisocial... plus not a lot of love for the leadership behind those "bonding situations."

Hellish is correct. Making you eat very disgusting food for a job is a lawsuit begging to happen. The whole point of that "challenge" is to force you far far outside what is acceptable. The challenge fails if you are open to eating it - to really work it has to be something only the chance of winning ton of money or some fame would make you do it. So for you a giant spider isn't bad enough; it needs to be something you fear and wrench at the thought of eating.

Low information people don't see anything getting worse because for them nothing has changed; they were ignorant before and they are ignorant now it's 5000% worse, they can't see any difference in the 2% of information they ingest.

So much widespread corruption so frequent that not only can't the media report on it fast enough (even if they were fully and honestly doing their jobs) it's also so much that it is just like the big lie psychology from the Nazi era -- people can't believe it's possible to be so extreme. They can't be lying that much... so they can't be corrupting that much... but it's that and more. We're all being reduced to low information with this DoS on our society; and technology is at the heart of all the problems helping force multiply evil.

If this was a REAL national security threat like they claim in order to ban them so extremely, this would be a huge scandal because the company had it's hands all over government already. We know it's all BS and so do the judges and the burden should be on the crooks to prove their dishonest decisions. This reminds me of how Amazon cloud was kept out of government out of spite and MS was chosen when there was obviously no contest which service was superior (putting critical infrastructure on a cloud service being foolish is a whole other subject... don't give me that "but my bucket is encrypted", when you seriously shouldn't even put the system online at all.)

Did you not even read the summary? If all tech companies did this instead of finding new and interesting ways to fuck up society, I'd be all for it. Honeypot those big thinkers into endurance competitions of stupidity? Hell yeah. This idea has potential.

It's just Spinal Tap for corporate types.

Is this "Adam Back" alive? Yes? Well, he is not satoshi then.

That documentary was a laugh a minute. This one I'd probably only be able to handle five minutes at a time lest I go into cardiac arrest from the laughter.

circumventing international restrictions on money laundering and terrorist funding might not be the best example of one

To expand on my previous answer: You're assuming this was an attempt at "circumventing international restrictions". The problem is: we don't know. The bank won't tell and they say "we are not allowed to tell you why". This is ridiculous, this goes against the most absolutely basic concept of any justice systems: laws must be known. There are no "secret laws" that you may be breaking. But in this case, there are.

And btw, if you ever try to make an international wire transfer, the bank will, first of all, ask "destination country". If the country is in a black list, you shouldn't be allowed to click "send money". If the country is in a grey list, the bank should ask you for "more compliance documentation". But NOT just close your account with your money in it.

Yes. I watched a documentary about the Destruction wreaked on countries that fell to the Roman Empire. Once they won, the Romans set to destroying the cities, and buried the places under the rubble.

They then set to rebuilding to reinforce Roman power. Interestingly, often a coliseum was one of the first items.

War is incredibly wasteful of resources and people. But it isn't going to go away totally because it is part of our genetics.