badsock

Sigh. You're right, sorry. I'm out.

I don't agree with visarga's first sentence. But I don't think it's childish to want a war criminal to be held to some account. More than 100,000 civilians died in that conflict, and Rice played a key role in knowingly selling the lies that lead to their deaths.

She deserves prison, and the founders and board of Dropbox deserve to be hounded for their complicity in her escape from any negative consequence resulting from her actions.

I thought the Boring company was the most "obviously for Mars" project. One of the cheapest ways to create pressurized, radiation-sheltered spaces is to dig.

This subthread is off of devmunchies comment about Reddit and Twitter, and the OP is about 4chan. All of these forums are global.

My point is that American-style conservatism may represent half of Americans, but it's overwhelmed in other developed countries (which, taken together, are larger in population). So much so that I would argue that in the global context, American conservatism is small enough and far enough to one side of the debate that it's accurate to call it an extreme.

I don't understand why everyone bought the idea that we don't need unions anymore.

This is exactly the sort of thing they make better.

What makes you say that American conservative views are not extreme, in the context of the global internet?

Something that's popular is practically by definition not on the extreme any more.

In most of the developed world the Democrats would be considered a moderate right-wing party, and the Republicans a far-right theocratic extremism party (like, say the DUP in the UK, or CHP in Canada).

What you're seeing is a ground-shift in values, and what used to be considered OK is now considered extreme, and is therefore being shifted into the margins of the discussion.

To put it in sharper contrast: if you started loudly expressing the most mainstream views of the 1700s in today's society, you'd get a lot of people trying to shut you up and, failing that, marginalize you. And, probably, they'd be right to do so.

You're speaking in pure ideology.

I could just as easily say that this the result of 40 years of the upper class shifting the tax burden downward to the middle class, while lobbying for the passage of laws to ensure that all of the economic gains during that period are funneled upwards towards themselves.

Telling the middle class to tighten their belt because - despite a growing economy - there just isn't enough to sustain the lifestyle that their parents enjoyed isn't sound economic principles, it's class war.

I have no problem with the possibility that men and women are different. What's unjustified is, given the powerful effect of culture on behaviour, someone making offhand claims that they know what differences are natural.

I read "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" as saying that what's "implicitly" (i.e. commonly) understood as to be the natural differences is correct. Because what has been "implicitly" understood has differed substantially across time and cultures, that's a highly suspect claim that requires a matching degree of evidence.

Furthermore, just the long and loud history of people spouting off absolute bullshit about what women are and aren't is, by itself, enough to demand significant evidence for any positive statements of what's natural or not.

That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem.

Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence.

This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indistinguishable from them.

Are you sure that's not spam?

This is essentially Trump's plan, which has had a hard time finding anyone in the field of economics to back it.

Can you point to anyone who has qualifications beyond being a pundit that believes that things would work out as you say?

Have you considered the possibility that there might be more than two ways (Randian capitalism or Marxist communism) to run an economy?

That's the standard ideological line, but this whole story is about how Apple is stockpiling cash, not investing.

(And yes, I understand that the cash isn't just stuffed in a mattress, but it's an important distinction that the money isn't being invested in the direct sense)

Genuine question: given this, am I correct in thinking that if there was a big corporate tax cut the most likely outcome is that the money retained would just further inflate this savings glut?