Nah, IKEA has replaced moving furniture with throwing it away and rebuying it. Prior to IKEA hiring a carpenter was also something that is done a few times in a lifetime/century. If anything it has commodized creating new furniture.
Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem. Also Russia gaining control means often the USA loosing.
> Why don't you ask your new friend China for help?
Who said China is the friend of Europe? The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse.
> We need to reallocate money away from our military, and towards our healthcare system
I don't think EU countries have a problem with that. They rather complain, that you are currently allocating money to a military, that wants to attack EU states and to a para-military that attacks USA citizens.
> So we need to drop sanctions on Russia, like China has done, so that the Europeans will like us more?
It is that China is seen as evil anyway, so nobody expects them to sanction Russia for real, while we didn't saw the USA that way.
> For years, Europeans have sharply criticizing the United States for sometimes partnering with authoritarian countries.
You don't criticize enemies, you criticize friends. I think the criticism also was more that you create authoritarian countries, partnering was also done by European nations, that's called realpolitik.
>Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem.
The US is a big country. Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones?
The Europeans always argue that the US only acts in its self-interest. But then when they explain why helping Europe is in the self-interest of the US, they always have the most nonsensical arguments.
>Also Russia gaining control means often the USA loosing.
I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia.
>It is that China is seen as evil anyway, so nobody expects them to sanction Russia for real, while we didn't saw the USA that way.
Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls?
>You don't criticize enemies, you criticize friends.
That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty. Furthermore, European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend. (That's been true for decades.)
>I think the criticism also was more that you create authoritarian countries, partnering was also done by European nations, that's called realpolitik.
Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior.
That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness.
It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you.
> US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2
If "US foreign policy analysts" would actually think that these situations might lead to the next WW2, then you wouldn't counter them with destabilizing countries, that leads to the rise of extreme parties and then treating them with ignorance. Because THAT is exactly how WW2 happened.
> If we are involved, we're called imperialist
Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved.
> It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. I mean you are a sovereign country and can do what you like, but you do it, because your administration thinks that is a good idea, not because all the other countries would tell you to. You frame it like other countries called for action and you did them and now they complain. No, they told you they won't like that, and you did it either way.
>Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you.
Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid.
>Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved.
Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"?
>If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye.
Even when US military action is requested or approved of by people in the country, we're still called imperialists. Consider the war in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were attacked. We came to their aid for some time. They kept fighting after we left. Yet this was still described as "neocolonialist" activity on our part. That's how our actions are always described.
> Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid.
I was more thinking of "post" Cold War interventions.
> Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"?
Yes. The US isn't alone in that situation. The EU is described as neocolonialist in the same way. Personally I think that is stupid and we shouldn't have let us be influenced by that. Now Europe stopped being "neocolonialist" and the Chinese has taken over that role in Africa. Now it's much worse both for us (EU) and for Africa. Great.
> Consider the war in Vietnam.
Honestly I wasn't alive and don't know the public opinion of that time. I basically only know it from history class. The rough sentiment is that the French messed up and the US has payed for it. It's true, that some actions in the war are portrayed as bad, most famously Agent Orange, but I think the war in total isn't blamed on the US.
> That's how our actions are always described.
Reading the other thread you linked, I think you have a worse view of the public opinion of the US then it actually is.
> I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia.
The thing is, nobody's offering you that. In the ideal scenario for Russia, the US would be mired in internal conflict and instability to such an extent that it would be unable to function as a country, leaving Russia to dominate the world:
> Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".
In other words, they want an endless line of Donald Trumps to ruin your country and turn it into a banana republic so that you wouldn't have the energy to pay attention to Russia stomping over the rest of the world.
Why would any American voluntarily choose this fate?
So according to you, the current state of the US is a result of us trying to "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO. Can you see why I wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about continuing to do this?
None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
I'm not sure exactly what you refer to with "the current state of the US". Domestic issues (e.g. personal financial struggle of the populace, "immigration", and cultural war like ICE), economic issues (bubbles, monopolies) or the role of the USA in world politics? It's the latter, that was the topic of the discussion so far, but I'm not sure if you call that "the current state of the US".
"mopsi" stated how you going isolationist and stuck in domestic struggles, is following Russias plan. So no, the current state of the US results in you stopping to
> "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO.
So this is what the EU complains about and tries to tell you: you follow Russians plan and that can't be in your best interest. (Not that the EU would be free from such interests either.) Do you think Russia would leave you alone when there plan succeeded? That would be the biggest success of Russian policy since 1945. When they can get you from the major world power to being a isolationist country with domestic struggles, why would they stop?
> None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
I think you need to define terms here. What exactly counts as "imperialism post-WW2" and what not? I mean the arms race let to the collapse of the soviet union, so I guess until to the 90s it went pretty good for the countries part of the "First World".
If you wouldn't have stayed in Europe after WW2, the USSR would have reached to the Atlantic. And no not just in 1945, they also tried that in the 50s and continued to want that. Not sure, if you already know, but Putin was in prison in Germany in the 90s for trying to topple the German government and his goal was to expand the "Soviet/Russian" empire to the Atlantic. He was already ~40 and has served in the KGB before, so I guess he hasn't changed his opinion since.
>When they can get you from the major world power to being a isolationist country with domestic struggles, why would they stop?
Why would they continue?
>If you wouldn't have stayed in Europe after WW2, the USSR would have reached to the Atlantic. And no not just in 1945, they also tried that in the 50s and continued to want that. Not sure, if you already know, but Putin was in prison in Germany in the 90s for trying to topple the German government and his goal was to expand the "Soviet/Russian" empire to the Atlantic. He was already ~40 and has served in the KGB before, so I guess he hasn't changed his opinion since.
Interesting. So the US saved Europe, you say. Yet we get nothing but complaints, mockery, and condescension from Europeans. You mock us for the same military-industrial complex which saved your butts. Wonder why we aren't interested in saving Europe again?
Because they like to increase their influence and territorial control and already did the hard part? Granted the USA becoming like Iran or Venezuela today seems a bit of a stretch. I honestly lack the imagination how a USA in ten years, that hasn't had elections that actually affect things, serves the best leader of all time and is a major ally of Russia looks like. There will also be so much other territorial changes in that scenario.
> Interesting. So the US saved Europe, you say. Yet we get nothing but complaints, mockery, and condescension from Europeans.
I don't think you get much mockery about the US cold war policy *in Europe*. Granted these people exist, but they also often do sit in the same party that merged with the ruling party of the GDR.
> You mock us for the same military-industrial complex which saved your butts.
I think a military industry propped up in war times by the government, and the resulting military complex having subverted civil rights and politicians are different situations. A military that is conjured by the people makes a country stronger, large "dead capital" in weapons and industry starting to control the government becomes dangerous.
> Wonder why we aren't interested in saving Europe again?
To some point yeah. I'm not going to say the EU hasn't made bad decisions in the last 30 years. I don't see it that black an white, so e.g. "So the US saved Europe, you say." I would say the US in alliance with West-European nations did save Europe, the Morgenthau plan wouldn't have helped against the USSR either. But my main argument for this discussion is, when the USA go isolationist now, it first messes up a lot of other things in the process and second the same will repeat that happened in the 1940s, there will be the need for the USA to intervene, because it affects their bottom line, and the situation will be much worse, and it causes much more loss (of human life).
This is essentially the same that process the EU just went through. It did "nothing" in 2014, because that is not NATO and we don't want to get involved in a war, and now it became worse. (I think our "we did get involved too much" is Yugoslavia, to some point participation in wars with the US and of course WW2.) Now we did get involved, because the next border will be a NATO and EU border. Sure, we can say it won't happen, Russia is not THAT strong, but the next decision would be to either get the EU in a complete war against Russia, or to give up on the territorial integrity of EU states. And we don't want to face that.
If we continue the discussion, I think it stops to make sense to treat both the US and the EU as single entities, because in both there are parties that have been arguing for one policy and for others.
No, the Euro-Atlantic alliance produced incredible prosperity in its heyday.
The current deteriorating state of the US is the result of departure from the previously held values and forms of cooperation. Nothing illustrates this better than the US president openly threatening the sovereignty of Canada and Denmark while accepting massive bribes from Arab sheikhs and calling genocidal dictators like Putin his "friends". This is the wet dream of people who want to see the US fail.
Why would any American want to hit the gas pedal and accelerate even further down this road?
You yourself just explained how Russia saw us as a threat and destabilized our politics, which lead to the current situation. We would have been better off if NATO was never formed.
If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position.
> You yourself just explained how Russia saw us as a threat and destabilized our politics, which lead to the current situation. We would have been better off if NATO was never formed.
No, Russia fundamentally wants to see you fail and take your place in the world. Without NATO, that would've been simply easier. You can castrate yourself, but that will not change their goal.
But it doesn't matter--you're arguing that prosperity for the average US worker began stagnating about 20 years after the formation of NATO. That's basically an anti-NATO argument, from the US perspective.
>Russia fundamentally wants to see you fail and take your place in the world.
My goal is to abandon our place in the world and be like the Swiss. I don't want to destabilize yet another country (Russia in this case). We're gonna have to live with Russia whether we like it or not.
> But it doesn't matter--you're arguing that prosperity for the average US worker began stagnating about 20 years after the formation of NATO. That's basically an anti-NATO argument, from the US perspective.
Irregardless of what the economic data actually says, why is this to be blamed on the NATO? I don't see the causal relation. If there was indeed something in the 1970s then I would default to blame the oil crisis.
> My goal is to abandon our place in the world and be like the Swiss.
They were directly in between the other nations in WW2 and capturing them made no sense for the others. They are also pretty small and lie in naturally protected mountains. I doubt the USA can become that, they are just too large.
"Consumption" figures are also misleading. In monetary terms, Americans consume more health services than anyone else, yet have fallen behind in life expectancy: https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8... Key life milestones like getting a college degree, starting a family, buying a house, or retiring have all become much more difficult to achieve despite skyrocketing GDP figures. Less and less of the total wealth (which is growing) is reaching the average American family.
> But it doesn't matter--you're arguing that prosperity for the average US worker began stagnating about 20 years after the formation of NATO. That's basically an anti-NATO argument, from the US perspective.
The prosperity of the average worker did not begin to stagnate when NATO was formed, but indeed decades later, when the US began to diverge from shared values to pursue financialization of the economy, deunionization and other forms of free-market radicalism that have set it apart from other advanced economies. NATO allies and US workers have been abandoned alike to pursue short-term gains, whether from outsourcing to China or cozying up to kleptocrats who promise to share their loot personally with the US president, his family, and his business buddies. Why should any American support this?
> My goal is to abandon our place in the world and be like the Swiss. I don't want to destabilize yet another country (Russia in this case). We're gonna have to live with Russia whether we like it or not.
I don't think you understand what it means in practical terms. Switzerland is entirely surrounded by the EU, and its economic prosperity depends on access to the European Common Market. Switzerland must follow the policies adopted by the EU without having a voice in the process, because it is not a member of the union, yet the Common Market is vital and losing access is not an option. Switzerland has to abide by EU's state aid and competition rules, manufacturing standards, and countless other policies, but Switzerland cannot even restrict entry of people from the EU to live and work in the country. Again, why should any American want to lose control over their country to such extent? Are you really ready for an European-South American economic alliance that dictates how many Mexicans can enter the US or how much subsidies you can pay farmers? I seriously doubt that.
As for Russia, you have the luxury of shaping the kind of Russia you live with. Is it the Russia that enslaved half of Europe and is using their brains to build a massive stockpile of nuclear missiles to blackmail you while you dig shelters in your backyard out of fear for your life, or is it a different, more peaceful Russia that has abandoned imperialism like Germany was forced to? Isolationism is a fool's errand. You can very well pretend that the war in Ukraine doesn't affect you, but consider that the nuclear missiles Russians tried to set up on Cuba were built in Ukraine. Would you rather have Ukrainians living under Russian boot and building nuclear missiles to burn down American cities, or have them building rocket engines in support of NASA space explorations programs like they did in the same Soviet-era nuclear missile factories in the early 2000s? It's not a difficult choice.
Most countries in the world don't have a choice and have to deal with whatever the life throws at them. You do have choice. Use it wisely.
I don't see why they would be, generally speaking.
"it’s very difficult to look at a country where the typical person lives in a larger house, is more likely to own a car, eats more meat, and uses more electricity than people in other rich countries, and to conclude that this is “a poor society”."
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-the-us-is-not-a-poor-societ...
>In monetary terms, Americans consume more health services than anyone else, yet have fallen behind in life expectancy
>The prosperity of the average worker did not begin to stagnate when NATO was formed, but indeed decades later
My claim is simply that NATO is not key to our prosperity. Post-NATO stagnation, insofar as it exists, is quite compatible with that claim.
>Switzerland is entirely surrounded by the EU, and its economic prosperity depends on access to the European Common Market.
None of the objections in this paragraph would apply to a more geopolitically neutral US. The US economy is large and relatively self-sufficient. Imports and exports are a relatively small fraction of our GDP.
>nuclear missiles Russians tried to set up on Cuba
...after we set up missiles in Turkey...
The Cuban missile crisis demonstrates the danger of American belligerence, and the importance of us being more peaceful, less paranoid, and more neutral.
Russia sees you as a threat since 1917 and you aren't going to change that. You can blame that on Germany if you want, but the German regime has been toppled since four times, so good luck holding anyone accountable for that now.
Russia has made major leaps in destabilizing your politics since we (the EU too) believed we won the cold war and stopped treating the Russian empire and allies (which China definitely was, now it's more equal or the opposite) as a threat. The USA also has a superiority complex, like most European nations also had, which certainly isn't helping now.
> If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position.
You said the USA going isolationist is going to solve problems, which granted isn't as extreme as the Trump foreign policy, i.e. it won't fuel the worsening of the current situation, but it isn't going the improve it either.
> Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones?
Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor? Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown? Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them. Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions.
> they always have the most nonsensical arguments.
Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you?
> Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls?
I already addressed exactly that:
>> The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse.
It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible.
> That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty.
While believing to have some power via financial ties. Now it's back to formal complaints and deadlines.
> European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend.
From the European viewpoint the criticism on the US administration is what would be also in the interest of the US populace. The US electorate of course begs to disagree, they elected Trump after all. Sorry, that protesting against expansion of corporate and state surveillance, influence of the military industry conglomerate and erosion of worker and environment regulation offends you personally. I fail to see how that is mean-spirited.
> That's been true for decades
The same criticism has existed for decades, but the official policy has stayed the same for a long time, namely that supporting "our" camp in world politics is worth compromising on international law, human rights and national security interest.
> Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior.
It literally just used the word to explain American behaviour.
>Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor?
None of these arguments make much sense.
>Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown?
I don't think it is a problem for us either way. No one is going to attack the US.
>Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them.
The US has made many mistakes in its foreign policy. I've made my opinion clear on that. Just because we did something in the past does not make it a good idea.
>Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions.
Well you'll be glad to stop then.
>Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you?
Tell that to the Swiss.
American soldiers should not die due to European ineptitude. There were only 2.5 years between Pearl Harbor and D-Day. Russia invaded Ukraine almost 4 years ago. If you truly believed this was an existential threat, then you've had plenty of time to prepare.
>It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible.
How about you respect our ability to determine our own foreign policy, and take responsibility for your own issues? As I said, stop treating us like a vassal state and telling us you know what is best for us (as you do in your comments). I'm not the only one who notices you doing this: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158145261
Look at this argument I had the other day... a European spent a bunch of time condescending to me, and wasn't able to muster a single factual argument in favor of their position. This sort of thing is very typical in my discussions with Europeans: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46742363
When Elon Musk endorses parties in Europe, Europeans complain he is interfering in their politics. The trouble is that Europeans have been doing the same in US politics for a heck of a lot longer. It's always the same patronizing and ignorant interference, based on a caricatured view of the US: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/eurocope "Haha, Americans are dumb. Haha, Americans die in school shootings. Haha, the American healthcare system sucks." All along, we've been deterring Russia for Europeans, and now as a result, Russia is working to destabilize the US (according to another commenter in this thread). I'm sick of it.
Think of it this way. I want out of NATO, so as to reduce the influence of the evil "military industry conglomerate". Just like you yourself said, we need to reduce its influence -- which means reducing our military size and commitments. Get it? I'm just taking your arguments to their logical conclusion.
> I am not a programmer and detest the terminal environment
As someone who finds formal language a natural and better interface for controlling a computer, can you explain how and why you actually hate it? I mean not stuff like lack of discoverability, because you use a shell that lacks completion and documentation, that have been common for decades, I get those downsides, but why do you detest it in principle?
Using netcat results in showing Unicode replacement symbols, instead of answering to telnet options. I doubt it implements telnet at all, because this is just not its job.
I agree in principle, but actually, according to the netcat website [0]:
> If netcat is compiled with -DTELNET, the -t argument enables it to respond to telnet option negotiation [always in the negative, i.e. DONT or WONT]. This allows it to connect to a telnetd and get past the initial negotiation far enough to get a login prompt from the server. Since this feature has the potential to modify the data stream, it is not enabled by default. You have to understand why you might need this and turn on the #define yourself.
So it supports enough to tell others that it doesn't support it. That's more than I expected, but still don't serves me when I actually want to use telnet.
The point is not that this particular binary is huge, the point is that we tend to strip images of anything that is not useful for the actual application shipped. So we strip everything. Also: small things adds up. On AI prompt can be handled reasonably by a single machine, millions of concurrent ones involve huge datacenters and whole energy plants being restarted/built.
The point of reducing the amount of binaries shipped with the image is also to reduce the amount of CVEs/vulns in your reports that wouldn't be relevant for your app but woulld still be raised by their presence.
Thanks, sounds like a recent development. I don't use macOS, but on other peoples macOS computer it was always there, even when they are not developers. But it could very well be that these computers are ten years old.
I mean technically MS Windows 10 is ten years old, but the big upgrade wave to 10 only happened like 4 years ago, which is quite recently. Maybe that is similar to macOS users, I don't know that.
On the contrary, older people properly announce themself on the phone, while younger people often don't answer at all, and let there be silence, until the other gives up, and asks who has picked up the phone.
The law is just someones else encoded ethics for a moment. You don't want your moral to change with the current administration. An ethics course is about thinking about ethics, it is not a mind-altering propaganda action.
Germany has the full address the ID card and the issuing office (containing the city) on both the driving license. They are also digital so who knows what they also store on them.
reply