Oh god, what an allegory to the current state of USA. You have the symbol of America performing to an empty theater having upset everyone in the audience except for 2 people/countries. It’s coming collapse wasn’t a big deal because everyone had already left the theaters. It does seem to be somewhat predictive of the future.

Well, it’s not hyperbolic because as I’ve said, sadly in life we’ve seen humans over consume far too many times.

I mean the best example I can give is climate change. It’s very clear our over consumption of oils is destroying our environment. But humanities reaction thus far has shown to basically call it an exaggeration and ignore the problem. If we keep saying human over consumption is hyperbolic, that’s how we get president Trump.

What do you find hyperbolic about this? In fact, it’s not even the first time it would happen. Why aren’t there Dodo birds, or California red legged frogs? Why are we concerned about Blue fin tuna or sustainable seafood at all? We have a long history of humans deciding something is good and too many of us eat it, build on it, over fish it etc… How would land lording be any different or hyperbolic?

*Edit: And that’s without everyone doing it as the OP originally suggested.

Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.

That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.

What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.

*Edit. I was thinking maybe you mean investments. But the same holds true there. AND because of hedgefunds and private equity it’s becoming more and more of all the money funneling into a handful of companies. All the economists are sounding alarm bells on this. But considering the direction our leaders are taking us, I think this is all part of the plan.

Of course she does. All American politicians are Israeli puppets. It’s always been strange to me that this is the case. However, I’ve also never seen an example that goes against the grain. Even Sanders is all about decreasing weapons sent, not stopping.

No I’m saying regardless of your opinion, you shouldn’t have an opinion based on the source of the statement is what I’m saying. Yes MBS is trash, but I would still listen to what he has to say.

So you think giving people freedoms to drink and go to bars is a bad thing?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-opens-first-liquor-store-rcna135597

And yes I’m fully aware of Khashoggi. What I’m saying is all people all governments have good and bad. I can easily agree with many things that awful people do. It doesn’t make them any less awful, but I’m not so ignorant to be opposed to something just because an awful person says it.

So to hate a good idea just because of it’s messenger is ignorant at best and harmful at worst.

The reason I bring this up is because in USA it’s becoming more and more like this. That regardless of what the policy is, the only thing the stupid politicians care about now is who the messenger is. And it’s doing incredible damage to the country.

Now, obviously you’re just making a statement. I don’t really disagree with it as I think MBS is a horrible human being. But I really don’t like the idea of agreeing or disagreeing with someone based on the person saying it.

This is true, China doesn’t care. I’m actually confused about the narrative around China wanting to take TSMC. Even the most cursory glace at the situation should make it obvious this isn’t one of China’s goals. This is because these EUV machines don’t work on magic. They work on knowledge and spare parts. Even in the unlikely scenario that China somehow invades and these machines aren’t destroyed by either China or the retreating Taiwanese, they aren’t going to be able to operate them and more importantly get spare parts to keep them running. They’d at best be used to disassemble and review.

All of this ignores the fact that China is already at 5nm using their own equipment anyway. For the extra 2nm of difference between TSMC’s 3nm to SMIC’s 5nm isn’t large enough to rationalize anything close to what they’re talking about. It’d be cheaper to just keep subsidizing the Chinese industry rather than invading.

All of this is to say, that China may or may not invade, but TSMC isn’t on the list of reasons. If anything, it’s on the opposite end. China has a LOT of motivation to bomb TSMC to prevent the west from getting chips as if TSMC is gone, then suddenly Chinese 5nm are pretty much the most advanced chips in the world (besides Samsung). Thus, the real conclusion is we need to invest in Samsung, which surprisingly isn’t happening for whatever reason is beyond me.

It’s good that you point that out. Because it shows US really can’t sanction China and only entities within it like it does to its own allies as opposed to straight country sanctions like Iran and North Korea.

https://www.tradecompliance.pitt.edu/embargoed-and-sanctioned-countries

Here’s a list.

In fairness though, that list also shows the US can’t sanction Russia either. So not sure how much of a flex not being able to sanction China is.

Yes, they can’t operate the website in USA so they’ll operate it in Canada and Mexico. And yes, that’s why they’re targeting the stores and not the site, because the only thing they can do is prevent operations inside the country but they cannot block access to it.

Finally, of course technically Apple could only allow EU to do this, but much like their transition to USB-C it would be weird if they did that. ESPECIALLY since having Tik Tok on their phones would be a benefit to them, not a negative.

*Edit: Also I was defining free speech in my initial post, which you seem to agree with. I was not trying to define this abhorrent loophole of a bill that bans but doesn’t ban because of 1A Tik Tok. And if you don’t understand why the government trying to loophole out of the constitution is bad, well I have no words.

Actually that’s not correct. Media isn’t like other products, it’s protected speech. This is why even though we’ve sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.

This is why this “ban” isn’t a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn’t block Tik Tok or it’s website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores. So if they don’t divest, you could still go to their website and download their app. With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you’ll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.

So what’s all this really about? Propaganda and showmanship. They’re just pushing a China bad narrative as realistically our 1A laws prevent them from doing anything actually effective here.

That’s an excellent question because people completely misunderstand freedom of speech. The law is freedom of speech from government persecution. Which is literally what banning Tik Tok is. It’s the government persecuting a company for being Chinese.

What the law does not protect is private persecution. If you come to my house and announce you’re a pedo, I can kick you out of my house for that. Just like tik tok can ban you.

Yes, but this is happening in the states too yet we don’t have this kind of insanity. For example, onlyfans is basically a website dedicated to monetizing incels. But there’s an implicit understanding that those actresses have their own lives. For some reason, in S.Korea they’re not allowed to have their own lives. It’s bizarre no matter how you look at it.

What you’re saying is true, but misses the point. Yes, larger content creators can get sources of income besides advertising. However, the whole point of youtube is to let anyone big or small get started. Small creators can’t get started if they don’t have a source of income. So that’s where the advertising comes in.

In a sense, twitch builds upon the success of youtube. They took large creators who could get the $5 subscriptions on to their platform. But this only increased the need for youtube to court advertisers.

In a world without advertisers paying content creators, our options would be severely limited. We want small upstarts and cutting off their source of income is a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, our world requires the necessity evil of youtube doing whatever it can to stop ad blocker. No matter how nice it is. And if you as a user are satisficed with the limited content from large creators, as you said, there’s always twitch.

Actually the other person who tried to disagree with me made a great point for my argument.

Youtube needs content creators and pays them through advertising. If advertising stopped, there would be no content creators.

So regardless of if it’s storage or bandwidth, they absolutely need to stop ad block. Otherwise no one will make content for youtube.

…yes, so google desperately needs those advertisers to advertise. And if they stop, their content stops existing. So yeah Google has to stop ad block. Otherwise who’s going to make anything for YouTube?

*Edit as you said

Google isn’t just giving away their money.

So they need advertisers to give out that money or they have no one posting videos.

Unless you think Google will just start giving out money.

So then they need to do whatever they can to stop ad block. Because Google pays shit loads of money due to ad revenue. I’m not sure how your logic disagrees with anything I said.

That’s fine, but that’s why Google is doing this. They need people who won’t watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs. I mean what business survives with zero income? The question google is asking isn’t whether or not some people will stop using it, the question their asking is will enough of them stop for them to generate income.