Germany is simply further from the origin of the Maize incident.

It's literally everything that people in relatively free markets buy.

Microsoft Windows is a great example that people will get really angry about, but like bubble gum also enriches the producer, seller and buyer.

Those are not great examples.

Bubble gum puts the buyer in a worse dental health situation.

Windows is a monopoly that controls the desktop market and the buyer would have been better off with a richer market with a variety of options.

You could have said cigarettes. They provide the same pleasure benefits as gum with unhealthy outcomes for the buyer.

You are making the mistake of asserting that the buyer exactly shares your values.

With Windows, I didn't assert that it was the value maximizing case, merely that it benefits both parties. Which it does, mostly likely to the advantage of the buyers.

By the same logic, an inmate in prison is benefiting from incarceration because they are receiving food and housing. Obviously, the costs of being imprisoned is greater than any "enrichment" from it, and this is exactly the case with Windows and almost all technology.

I would you my statement about relatively free markets addresses that.

Businesses that expand their licensing agreements with Microsoft aren't doing it because they are being coerced.

"Free" market coercion is probably the only reason companies like Microsoft are still in business.

It’s concerning that this was even a question!!!

For gasoline engines, electronic fuel injection is far better than a carburetor, it isn't just the emissions systems.

Sure, it's harder to work on. The trade off there is that you don't have to work on it.

Ready to eat food at larger gas stations has probably replaced some of the cheaper fast food.

Why make 2 stops and all that.

for what it's worth, 7-Eleven® Bahama Mama is a high quality meat product from schmidts sausage.

Same with their dogs, excellent stuff.

Source: hot dog connoisseur and ex-cashier

In the last 100 years, we managed to prove that cooperation beats competition.

Of course we do have competition, but where it has worked the best, it has been done in the context of cooperation, economic trade that follows norms and laws.

Too bad we gave stupid people power.

This is the liberal view of security, yes, but in my opinion it's naive and it lacks explanatory power, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

But for example, Venezuelan oil is worth very little to China. It's literally stupid to use violence to prevent them from accessing it.

Meanwhile it's sort of becoming very clear that Venezuela is about Cuba.

It's worth little at its current flows, but this ignores the temporal dimension which is where stock is more important because the flows can be built up over time. Only 20%-30% of China's oil is secure, the rest suffers from the Malacca dilemma which is why the US focuses on naval power projection as part of its Pacific containment policy, a lesson they learned with the oil blockade against Japan in WW2.

Oil is also not the only security dimension, the other dimension is to deny China a physical staging ground near to US territory for air, missiles or radar and SIGINT. Not a problem right now, but again these calculations need to involve the temporal dimension. If you believe there's a 25% chance of conflict over Taiwan, using the status quo of peace to justify decision-making is an "assume the best" doctrine which is a terrible security doctrine.

This isn't to say that security calculations are the only factor involved in this Venezuela operation. It is one piece of it. It's also somewhat besides the point because I am discussing underlying causal mechanisms, not fixating on a specific conflict.

As for how this relates to those mechanisms: the only reason these "security calculations" are even considered is because the US no longer holds a monopoly on world power. In the 1990s, it was a foregone conclusion. In that security, "cooperation" could occur. Then liberals osberve that cooperation and mistake it as the cause, when it's really the effect.

The specifics do matter if your argument is that some actions are a complex response to something and then the specifics are that the actions are stupid and nearly random.

The combined margin in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which could combine to flip the election) was about 250,000 votes. That's not all that emphatic.

Baader–Meinhof phenomenon.

The fact that it is consistent across vehicles sort of mitigates the problems with it. "Arrow points at fuel door" is not actually hard to remember.

Right, who is swinging the hammer? Is it the user that asks for it to be swung or is it the thing that responds by swinging?

I dunno, I think a significant amount of fault lies with the developers who were either too stupid and too bad at software to create a tool that couldn’t create CSAM, or were too vile to enable the restriction.

I also think people who defend that kind of software are in dire need of significant introspection.

Do we really need the bad analogy at all?

No.

But if someone uses one, it can make sense to illustrate that it doesn't apply as cleanly as they think.

The US somehow subjugating 180 million people is delusional. And tens of millions of current US citizens would probably side with Canada and Mexico.

<<side with Canada and Mexico>>

can confirm!

Those citizens can't even side with the US, why should they side with foreign countries?

Maybe they do side with the US, just not with its ‘leader’?

Thats what I meant. All I see from americans is apathy or feverish reverence for their leader. No american will intervene when the US government gives marching order towards Canada or Mexico.

If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired, so an unexpired id should be enough to end the encounter.

If they are suspected of some other crime, detain them for that, fine. But no masked goons accosting people because they claim they suspected their immigration status.

The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.

Which has little to do with the procedure we should require when an enforcement officer is presented with a valid state issued id.

I responded to this:

>If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired

It seems like you believe that if somebody had been long enough in a state to obtain a state id then their status in the country is legal forever. In the few states where I've got id it took about a month to get an id - you need to lease some housing and get two bills. But even if it took 50 years to get a state id it would not change anything - a state id is not a proof of legal status in the country. Immigration officers can detain people on reasonable suspicion, which is the same standard that is needed for a traffic stop.

It's right in the quote there. If they have a valid id, suspicion is not enough to continue hassling them.

I guess I believe that we should remove the discretion that you believe the officers have...

I have not seen this in the article, which is mostly focused on strawmanning the Real ID but even it was there, it's just an opinion. The law does not make any exceptions for having a valid ID as far as I know.

Yes, I'm doing the strange thing of talking about what a just, moral society should do rather than interpreting and analyzing the limits of current law.

A just, moral society, would not let people off with violating its laws for decades so it would not need to hunt them down when its citizens got finally fed up.