This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.
They will never lift much. If they were strong enough to lift heavy objects they would be strong enough to kill you accidentally. There's no technology fix for that.
TSLA at $150 would still be a phat valuation. The best that can be said for that number is the Tesla lacks a lot of the baggage of legacy car OEMs. Their current cars are still competitive for three or four more years, but I don't see them spending what it takes to update their products, which is how you make a path from a $150 to zero.
Balderdash. Russia has elections. There are plenty of places with elected governments that don't rise to the definition of democracy. We can't really claim to be a democracy without citing the caveats that our elections are bought by the Epstein class, and that we have a nearly overt fascist movement, with some tech industry leaders in that movement, among other ways in which democracy is degraded in the US.
Not maintaining and cultivating our democracy reduces our legitimacy, and when our acts affect the whole planet, that legitimacy matters.
Is that 40,000 number going to turn out to be the nurse Nayirah of Iran? Does that number come from a credible NGO? Is there a mass grave in a known location? Grieving mothers?
An irony is that guns are vastly more often used for self harm than for self defense. These supposed defenders of rights are often losing their own lives and the lives of family members with the instruments they demand to have a right to have.
I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Here's what I think just happened:
Me: I value the right to self defense
You: Guns are used for self harm more often than self defense [as an aside, I don't disagree that this is true - I've heard this stat many times]
You: This is ironic!
Please help me to understand why you think that's ironic. What do you feel would be a non-ironic position? Is it this....
Me: I value the right to self defense, but one day I might want to kill myself, so I guess I'd better give up the right to self defense.
Is that a non-ironic position? To me that seems like an irrational position. Those two issues (self defense and self harm) seem orthogonal, and conflating them because of a superficial similarity (they both involve guns) seems odd.
Ok. Now this is logic I understand. Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to self defense. The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?
reply