standardUser

In Europe there's a maybe 0.1% chance that any random adult is carrying a firearm. And the vast majority of those are going to be rifles for hunting. In the US, it's more like a 3% chance. And firearms in the US tend to have higher capacity and higher rates of fire. Hence the default militaristic response from law enforcement. Or at least that's one of several reasons.

It's a balancing act. Build too much and developers make less money. Build too little and poverty and homelessness shoot up. Which side do you want to err on?

Right, but the idea that Americans specifically should pay higher prices is beyond propaganda. It's Stockholm Syndrome-level delusion. Big Pharm has thrived for generations on our research universities (for the time being anyway) and had a front row seat to expanding foreign markets under US-led globalization. In return, we get the world's most expensive healthcare system and the privilege of paying too much for meds because our leaders won't cut a deal. All they have to lose is the "hundreds of millions to billions range" in annual lobbying expenditures by Big Pharma.

In a sane world - or literally any other country - that $300-$500 million in annual lobbying would be the literal difference that makes medicine accessible for those who need it. Instead, it goes to expensive lunches.

China is a full blown superpower and it should surprise no one when they catch up to or surpass the West in technical feats.

People with severe allergies or at high risk would probably make the tradeoff even if side effects were a problem. If they're not a problem, I could see most people taking this regularly just to avoid the nuisance of respiratory infections.

This is one of likely many shocks that will reward those nations that are leading on cutting fossil fuel use - and punish the laggards.

Imagine running a company with any exposure to Trump's schizophrenic tariffs. I wouldn't hire either.

Ebb and flow. Would you prefer only ebb, when that ebb was decimating the health of millions of working people? Maybe some flow is justified and necessary.

> The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.

This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.

I'm not clear on what Tesla is doing these days. They've been left in the dust on autonomous driving, they've failed to update their successful car models, and their only new model was a spectacular failure.

Idiocy and incompetency tend to share the same bed.

> The issue seemed to completely drop from public discourse during the Biden presidency

Biden signed into law the largest investment in clean energy in US history, dwarfing everything that came before. Half the economy was trying to get their hands on some of that stimmy.

I guess your time isn't vlauable.

Maybe the menace is the drivers. That's indisputable when you look at injuries per mile.

Every car is more affordable when you don't have to pay a human being to operate it. The difference in labor costs dwarfs the difference in vehicle costs.

It's tough in the US because the one thing we have already going for us is a massive and comprehensive road network. Waymo et al are leaning heavily into the existing infrastructure, which is the right move given the inability of the US to execute major changes to infrastructure these days. Compare that to China, where infrastructure is being actively upgraded to accommodate autonomous vehicles. As nice as the Chinese approach sounds, it's probably a lot less exportable than the 'take the roads as they are' approach of Waymo.

They want the tourist dollars. They happily allow Americans to visit.

You are right - I'm thinking of the package with internet. But TV alone was around $100 to get the good channels (not HBO, but Comedy Central and MTV etc) plus the absurd premium I paid for the privilege of watching MLB games for my home team.

I recall visiting Cuba during the second term of Obama (shortly after his visit) and seeing the various reforms that were taking place and feeling very optimistic about the island's future. We saw a lot of highly political art on display, ate at some of the first private restaurants, watched a helicopter explode overt the ocean as they were filming a Fast and Furious film, and went to a nightclub/art show event that rivaled anything I've been to in NYC.

In a sane world, we would be Cuba's largest trading partner and largest source of tourists. In that hypothetical world, the ongoing economic and cultural exchange would have propelled the island towards a different political system. Instead, we doubled down on an approach that has failed for 70+ years.

A decent cable package was around $150/mo in the 90's, before streaming took hold. That's for scheduled programming only, and always with lots of ads.

Do you really think we're worse off today? Is anyone paying close to a 90's cable bill for their various streaming services? And is the quality the same as we endured back then?

Few people would bring an illegal firearm into NYC or other major US metros because a) the penalties in most of those cities and states can be brutal and b) it's not that difficult to acquire a legal firearm in most cities. If someone's smuggling a gun it's likely because it's just a small part of more varied criminal activity. Or because they did it by accident.

Also, I find it unconscionable to suggest we should allow home manufacturing of automatic weapons without even engaging with possible ways to stem that tide.

China had fallen behind long before Mao, after being among the most powerful and advanced nations for most of recorded history. It appears to now be stepping back into that familiar role.

Maybe the Board of Peace can pick up the slack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Peace

~30% of total energy consumption in Europe is from ICE vehicles. So selling more EVs and winding down ICE sales can resolve 1/3rd of the issue.

Perhaps in an ideal world, we trade mostly with allies and nations that are ideologically aligned with the US. Unfortunately, the current president is doing everything he can to weaken alliances with those nations and cripple those trade relations.

Yes, following an almost cookie-cutter-like pattern of emerging economies protecting and supporting their auto industries.

Who fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.

Europe isn't the US and it isn't China, but it is collectively one of the preeminent military and economic powers in the world. So, as long as they'd like.

I fail to see what "good will" has to do with anything.

Personally, I despise an outspoken bigot like Scott Adams more when they die, not less, because now their window for growth and repentance has closed. The grotesqueness they harbored becomes permanently tied to their legacy.