You could fund the facilities, but how many people would be willing to get a doctorate in biological chemistry if the only available jobs were relatively low paying civil servants?

Most of the researchers in the pharmaceutical industry were employed as minimum wage workers during their six years in college. We would have to completely overhaul the incentive structure if we expected colleges to replace the for profit industry.

I have mixed feelings on this. If the entire world had access to free healthcare, chances are research and development would grind to a halt unless they also funded research and development. Taxpayers would need to be willing to pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars if they discovered a useful product.

…it can work in theory, but I’m not sure if it would work in a democracy. The average voter would demand that money be spent on more immediately useful services. If it did work, however, we would save the billions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend on lawyers and marketing.

These pictures seem to imply that she was a victim of Epstein. I have my own opinion on this situation, but we should probably hold all of these women to the same standard.

I find it reassuring that the government is at least acting like they can’t identify this user without Reddit’s consent. I wonder why this charade is necessary; are they trying to set a legal precedent?

I think most Americans are apathetic about issues that don’t effect our lifestyles. We don’t necessarily like the actions of our country as a whole, but we limit our outrage to the internet and the ballot box.

It seems that there are multiple accounts set up to downvote anti-Chinese comments, so equilibrium is maintained.

Honestly, I think voting Republican would be the best course of action to further my preferred Democrat agenda. On the whole, the elections average out to be about 50-50. I don’t understand why, but both parties seem to seek equilibrium.

Maybe the Democrats will be forced to make more popular policy decisions (i.e., universal healthcare) if they start losing by a landslide. Too many major losses would call into question the integrity of a two party system.

I don’t have much faith in the Democrats. I’m reading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It’s a great book, and everyone should give it a read. It basically sums up the entire history of America from a Liberal law professor’s point of view.

… regardless. In terms of taxes, Democrats are largely responsible for increasing taxes on the poor and subsidizing the rich. They at the same time give weak concessions to the lower class, but these are flimsy enough to be overturned the minute Republicans are in charge.

He summed it up in one sentence:

In a two-party system, if both parties ignore public opinion, there is no place voters can turn.

This is pretty much the only strategy they have. Although their country is one third as populous as the United States, their defense department has less funding than Arkansa’s public education system. Outrage from the America public is their only defense against US military superiority.

It’s a good strategy. I’d be upset if my tax dollars blew up thousands of civilians making a human chain around a powerplant.

Also, somehow preventing adblock would trigger the creation of a corporate competing product. This is a bigger threat to Google than people stealing their bandwidth.

I’m not sure what my argument is exactly; I looked up the definition of civilization because I was bored and was shocked when Trump’s statement made literal sense.

Civilization (noun):The stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced.

The definition Oxford Languages uses is:

“they equated the railroad with progress and civilization”

I hate to say it, but Trump used the correct definition of civilization in regards to his destruction of civilian infrastructure. It doesn’t imply genocide.

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of the people who are anonymous are robots and stealth marketers. Normal people aren’t usually willing to put in the effort to maintain their privacy. They use their “anonymous” social media and AI accounts on devices tied to their verified credentials (Google, Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, etc.)

My theory is that these companies want identity verification to prevent swarms of bot farms from clogging up their servers. Up until this point, the drawbacks of identity verification outweighed the positives.

I don’t buy this. Controlling firearms and restricting who exactly can join a militia was a common strategy for preventing rebellions at the time the United States was founded.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with giving armies firearms. The people responsible for putting down slave revolts were always armed.

…I’m not sure Europe would be better off if Iran was controlled by Russia, and I’m not sure if an independent Iran is a realistic option. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe needs the oil more than America does.

I sort of agree though. I haven’t heard a compelling argument as to why we are interfering in Europe’s problems. They have the strength of character to take on countries like Iran and Russia.

Does anything useful even come in 8K at this point? I saw it as a spec last time I went television shopping, but it seemed like something that wouldn’t be useful for another decade.

… people have a tendency to underestimate how prone they are to manipulation. We should amend our constitutions to include freedom of thought as a fundamental human right.

Good for them. Chrome needs a corporate competitor, and the recent lawsuits that (I think) prevent Google from giving FireFox hundred million dollar bribes might lead to a diminished product.

They have their advantages. They aren’t particularly good at protecting a person since a person that owns or wields a firearm is much, much, much more likely to be stabbed or shot. The other person in the altercation needs to kill or disable them to preserve their own life.

Firearms do, however, make a great store of wealth. If a gun owner ever needs money, they can easily make a profit…especially on the black market. This is arguably one of the most important benefits from the perspective of gun owners. The value of a gun increases with inflation.

It would honestly depend on the melting point of the tar and what it’s mixed with. I guess they could just heat pure wood tar, but they had the technical know how to mix it with volatile plant oils to make it more liquid.

The goal is to humiliate a person; running around like a chicken is more humiliating than being a dead chicken. Since they wanted a show, they would have went out of their way to make it less deadly.