bronipstid

Exactly. Once the occupying force was removed from those countries the underlying ethnic conflict resumed openly. Similar things will happen elsewhere as US military power wanes.

Yes, and that claim is wrong. Germany has had 50,000 US troops stationed in it for 75 years and the most rebellious thing they've done is politely ask for their gold back (US said no). No need to subvert a country you already have firm control over.

Wow, published in 1909. Amazing how old (and wrong) this "economic mutually assured destruction" argument is.

I think it's popular today as a distraction from the fact that the American Empire is really held together by military occupations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America etc. and not economic ties. Obviously "we just want to make you rich" is much nicer sounding than "we will bomb you if you resist US hegemony".

Interesting. The McDonald's thing is sort of like saying that no two Soviet Socialist Republics have ever gone to war. It just means they aren't really sovereign independent countries acting on their own behalf.

It absolutely would be a betrayal of the people you'd be giving up on to not do everything we can to help them while we still can. You can advocate for or against taking strong action but you can't tell people you're allowing to die to not be upset about it.

Why not? It's just giving some context to people who may think .2% is a "low" mortality rate.

Thanks for the age specific number. That shows my point even more.

For comparison, the death rate across all age groups of flu is 0.1%. Extrapolating out, a failure to contain the virus will still mean tens of thousands of young healthy people dying in every country. That's why governments are finally admitting "Herd Immunity/Flatten the Curve" without total containment is not an option.

Google, Microsoft, Apple and even Firefox have an incentive to reduce competition by making the web as complex as possible. If the web is to be free, it must be radically simplified. To call that a lost cause is just a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I think his point is that if people set the objectives, the AI will learn what people like, and that is going to be discriminatory in some way.

See the reply by masonic. The article makes no mention of this being different other than the added protection for the officers, but like I said the tone is clearly attempting to give that impression without actually saying it.

I'm really tired of being called a fascist for wanting to live in a country with boarders.

You certainly didn't misapprehend the narrative this article is trying to push. I don't think immigration enforcement should stop as a result of the pandemic, if anything we should be even more determined to discourage illegal entry.

That's the point. The people making the above arguments are unsympathetic racists. The fact that a subset happen to be members of the group they attack is quite odd but still just as wrong as others making those arguments.