yeah, that’s true, i guess what makes it a bit off is i’m accustomed to hearing awful things about the US.
yeah, that’s true, i guess what makes it a bit off is i’m accustomed to hearing awful things about the US.
yeah fair point, do you think it would make sense to say that some have knowledge of it besides academics & people in think tanks? like politicians i guess
Hm, I think the kinds or categories of differences might be significant. Enough for legislators and policy makers, and I think enough for residents of different countries to get some perspective. If there’s no context or the context is not well understood, how would one know if things can get better or worse in a meaningful way?
Ah ty, I’m learning spanish, is it supposed to be like the word “estadonidense”? i’m learning spanish from south america if that means anything in like word usage
That’s fair. Don’t you think the main point still stands? The US is abysmal for healthcare and is comparable to a much poorer nation which it embargoes?
Hey what is EEUU? I’m getting blanks on my search.
EDIT: It means amerika
I think it’s work that does the work, a tautology, I think using money as a proxy for work is a convenient hop and skip. When it comes down to a rigorous analysis (of the kind say a climate scientist does in a life-cycle assessment money is to vague a reason. What does it represent? Some amount of gold? Well, the US dollar is no longer pegged to gold à la Bretton Woods, how then does ‘money talk’?
I was meaning to respond but I think other’s have. I have one of those 30+ min YouTube videos or similarly ridiculously long blog posts (and a longform article somewhere…) though I think you might not be interested so I’ll keep it to myself unless you are interested in a good faith argument (argument, root word is the latin argumentum, to make clear; prove), I would rather not waste your time or my breath if that isn’t the case.
The rule of law in a specific geographic area in a specific period of time isn’t nearly as important as the meaning conveyed which is misleading.
Rather than missing the forest for the trees, why might he push for the title of founder? Why might some discredit his efforts and tactics in assuming the founder of title in specific contexts?
He did not play a meaningful role in the beginning of the company and is not responsible for its success. Money was responsible, the two founders’ expertise was responsible, that specific person is not special enough for their contribution to matter much. Anyone can supply capital especially during the inflated economic conditions (of which we are suffering the consequences of now) and during the time where EV and technology at large was developed enough to allow such developments to take place.
It’s early access so I don’t think it counts, but I played the demo some time ago: Gloomwood
Willing to admit my ignorance. Thanks for the info.
Wholeheartedly agree. Though I am not sure I would agree with your framing of it being ‘left’ or ‘right’. For sure the content seems to have more vitriol and divisiveness. I would use it in the past to follow scientists and their updates about research, it was really good for that.
Now the majority of those I follow post inflammatory comments or reactions to other content and I find the content writ large has decreased. I’ve so far increased my RSS, IRC, and mailing list usage, but it was nice to have tweets which are character-limited. I could skim through easier without having something catch my attention.
I remember they used to own Lenovo. Ngl, I feel that it’s thrived after it was sold, their Yoga line and novel products are very interesting.
huh, thanks for sharing! i learned something!
i think demon every time i read demonym and i’ll never not see it