Well then this is definitely going to blow your mind... I'm not American and I don't live in the US.

If, like me, you didn't know who OnePlus was.

I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

Back in the early 2000's (before smartphones and social media) I used to work at a company where we'd go out to lunch almost every day as a group. There were people of both political persuasions (this was in the US) and we'd have real thoughtful discussions about politics face-to-face. Feelings were on display. People were a little exasperated at times. But everyone went back to work and worked together and got shit done, and were respectful to each other.

A few years ago I was back in the US on a job, and a bunch of us were going out to lunch, and I said, "is so-and-so coming?" and they said, "no, he won't come with us. He's a democrat." I guess they didn't consider Canadians democrats because I was still invited. But that's how bad it's gotten, and let's not kid ourselves... it's entirely social media that's changed how people communicate.

I was at dinner with a group of people (in Canada) a year ago. My mother and an acquaintance started arguing over some kind of politics. In my mind it was pretty mild and they did listen to each other. She apologized to me later, and I said, "No, don't apologize! I want people to spend time talking face-to-face! It's way more civil than what gets said online, and you were both listening to each other." It's not like they stopped talking to each other... they still have pleasant conversations now when they see each other.

I suggest getting to know people who disagree with you, and just spend some time together. Ideas only change when people feel listened to.

The idea of catching the rocket means you don't have to include landing legs, which is a significant weight savings. You add the weight on the part that never goes "up". It's a good idea, and the same reason that SpaceX's next generation Starship system uses catch arms to catch the booster and second stage when they return. You do spend a bit more time hovering, which is consuming fuel. I assume the engineers did the math and the fuel you need to hover for a couple seconds is lighter than the weight (and increased drag & complexity) of the landing legs.

The only interesting story you can tell about Superman is bringing up the question... "If you're so powerful, why not just use it for your own purposes? Nobody can stop you. Why help people?" And the answer, which has always been part of the Superman mythos, was that he was raised by two salt-of-the-earth good people out in the middle of nowhere who taught him good old fashioned American values. He does it because it's the right thing to do. Does anyone remember "Truth, Justice (and the American Way)?" I think the recent Superman movie did a reasonable job of leaning into that, in an environment where the audience is jaded about American institutions. It's a tough sell, particularly trying to sell the movie to urban audiences to see everything rural as something to look down on, and rural audiences who see everything urban as selfish and corrupt.

What you just said is super-creepy in a "one of us, one of us" kind of way. Have you ever read Brave New World?

Again, accumulation is a necessary mechanism of the system.

If you were running a centralized economic committee (like in the soviet system) then you need a way to figure out which committee members are making good decisions, and which are making poor ones. So one way is to give all the new ones a small portfolio and get rid of the ones that run it into the ground, and promote the ones that do well by giving them larger portfolios.

Under a free market system that allows personal ownership you're essentially doing the same thing. The people who make sound financial decisions will grow their wealth by making good choices of what to invest it in. The guy who sets up a really efficient trucking company in an area that has a lot of demand for transportation services will accumulate wealth. When his son takes over and stops maintaining the fleet and takes the proceeds of the company and buys a huge yacht, his wealth starts dropping.

When the government takes some percentage of profits and invests it into medical care, education, or roads, then we see general efficiency improvements across society (healthy educated people are more productive).

But if society were to take a chunk of wealth from people who've accumulated it and they handed it out as lump sum cheques to average people, you have to carefully consider what's actually happening. First of all, wealthy people don't have wealth sitting there in a bank account. Almost all of their wealth is in the form of shares of companies. So in order to pay the tax they have to sell a significant number of those shares on a market. That will drop the price of those shares, including the price of the shares sitting in people's retirement funds. So who is going to buy those shares? Who has the cash to actually buy them? It's not even clear to me that there's *this* much cash sitting around ready to buy shares. But what's certain is that the people who are getting the lump sum cheques in the mail are almost certainly not the ones buying those shares. So we're moving shares from people to some other people who have cash sitting around waiting for a good deal, and that cash is then paid to the government and given out to the population. Those people then spend it on, presumably consumables like food, clothes, televisions, electronic devices. Maybe a few of them pay off debts. Very few of them will invest it with the same economic smarts that lead to that wealth being created in the first place. So you forced the top wealth accumulators to sell their shares to some people who were sitting on a pile of cash, for a discount, and then you gave that pile of cash to the people who did nothing more than drive up inflation. I'm not sure this is good for the economy at all.

Paying a share of corporate profits to the government who use it to invest in education, health care, and infrastructure sounds like a better plan to me.

This is just the latest app produced by the "I could code this in a weekend" crowd.

He must have read that BS book that Oprah was promoting years ago called The Secret. "It is based on the belief of the pseudoscientific law of attraction, which claims that thought alone can influence objective circumstances within one's life."

You definitely should pay more marginal tax as you make more money, up to some point. The first $10 or $20k you make should be tax-free, and then the tax rate should become progressively higher after that, but should max out around 30% or so. But that's only 30% of income, not 30% of net assets. Taxing assets is theft. Taxing income is progressive.

However, the accumulation of wealth into the hands of people who make good investments (i.e. making good choices of what to spend it on so that they invest in something profitable) is a valuable feature of the system, and is the reason it's allowed to happen. The government is bad at choosing projects to invest in. The market does it automatically and in an efficient and distributed manner. Picking the right investments is the useful work that entrepreneurs and capitalists are providing to society. If you do something to prevent more capital being given to the people who are making the best investment decisions, then you're actively discouraging the efficient allocation of capital. That would be a good way to run your country into the ground.

The government's job is to regulate the negative aspects of capitalism. That means it has to prevent tax loop-holes for the wealthy (as you said), stop corrupt officials from profiting from their position, punish companies for monopolistic behavior, and reduce the influence of money in the political system. These are the things we should be voting for. Not a 5% government approved theft of assets.

Side mirrors almost always leave a large blind spot directly behind and close to the vehicle. There's a reason that when firefighters are reversing their appliances they always have at least one of the crew physically get out and watch the area behind the vehicle.

Even a rear window and rear view mirror almost always leave a significant blind spot low and close behind the vehicle, which is why reversing cameras became a thing. When they're done well, they really are significantly safer, as well as sometimes making it a lot more reliable for most people to park the vehicle in difficult spaces.

One of the modern innovations I really would like to have is full AR on my windscreen. I want unexpected hazards highlighted in real time, particularly those that are more easily detectable by non-visual sensors, like big potholes or animals obscured by vegetation near the side of a country road. I want the actual driving line I need to take to follow my planned route through complex junctions overlaid slightly on my view of the road ahead. I want light amplification for night driving, ideally combined with some other technology that can reduce the glare from oncoming headlights to prevent dazzle.

Although I only want all of this if (a) it's implemented well and (b) any additional data it uses is reliably up-to-date and (c) there's an emergency shut-off that instantly clears everything off the windscreen in case anything goes wrong.

Don't worry. You probably have funky modern door handles that don't work when the power goes out anyway. Not that the power in an EV is likely to go out if it's underwater or on fire or anything.