US car culture has been dead for a long time, at least internationally. People like big American cars made in 50s - 70s for their looks, but since then all I can think of are oversized pickups, Nascar and Tesla which is getting eaten alive by Chinese competitors.
That is unfortunately not the case - see all the ridiculous ginormous American pickup trucks invading Europe as a "look at me, I'm rich" or "look at me I'm (local equivalent to) MAGA" signifiers.
The C8 is great, The Hellcat, Demon, etc are kinda US specific (won't be great on the curvier roads in Europe) but still cool. Modification/Tuning is very alive and well due to lack of regulation in comparison to Europe or pretty much anywhere else..
Car culture is getting killed everywhere because safety and comfort by far outweigh fun in gov priorities but I'm literally considering the US because I'll be able to drive whatever I want. Good luck finding someone running nitrous on the street in Europe nowadays, stretched bikes, engine swaps, etc. It all comes with administrative fees, a lot is forbidden and even if your documents are in order you'll get in trouble because police officers are not qualified or incentivized to deal with severely modified vehicles.
Just cross the border to Sweden or Finland, and the share of EV's of all new cars drop from around 90 to something like 30-35%. The EV transition is going to take a while longer in most EU countries.
Of course something to note is the absolute number of cars sold, which has dropped dramatically at least here in Finland. Most people who are priced out of new EV market simply don't buy any new car at all, and the average age of cars is climbing fast. Either way, few people are looking for new ICE vehicles. No point buying outdated tech new, when the used car market has perfectly good ICE vehicles that perform just the same.
Don't you have private healthcare in the UK too, if you aren't satisfied with the NHS?
IMO universal healthcare is awesome as the final safety-net that provides critical care, no matter your financial or employment situation. Yet it doesn't need be the only option. If businesses or people with money want to pay more to get care faster from private sector, that's okay too. It's how the system works here in Finland.
Ditto Australia, hybrid public / private healthcare ...
* private is good for better rooms, more scenic views, personalised spa like service and near immediate access to non life essential procedures
* public keeps the majority of people alive and triages procedures, you can get overnight heart stent surgery for free if required, might have to wait a few months for non critical knee surgery.
Private healthcare exists in the interstices of the NHS. The gorilla in the room squishes everything else into the corners.
Safety nets would be great, but a net that arrives several days after you have already fallen to the ground is not very helpful. That is what rationing-by-queueing does. Maybe Finland is great - I believe you! Britain's system is not.
But where will office workers displaced by AI leave? Industrialization brought demand for factory work (and later grew service sector), but I can't see what new opportunities AI is creating. There are only so many service people AI billionaires need to employ.
No, you cannot ignore every argument by claiming someone else made it before. Make an actual response.
What new opportunities does the LLM create for the workers it may displace? What new opportunities did neural machine translation create for the workers it displaced?
In what way is a text-generation machine that dominates all computer use alike with the steam engine?
The steam engine powered new factories workers could slave away in, demanded coal that created mining towns. The LLM gives you a data centre. How many people does a data centre employ?
As models gain a deeper understanding of the physical world (e.g. Google world generator), I see nothing less than a new renaissance in our future.
Forget about data centers, all the little things will iteratively start getting a little better. Then one day we’ll look around and realize, “This place looks pretty good.”
Most likely these clothes will be just dumped to poorer parts of Africa and Asia, where they're finally sold for peanuts, or in worst case dumped into a landfill. That's what already happens for a lot of used clothes that people give away.
IMO selling the clothes to people that otherwise couldn't afford them is always better than destroying them, so EU is doing the right thing here.
So many clothes are already shipped to poorer parts of africa that it ends up being essentially indistinguishable from a landfill.
There are more clothes produced worldwide than there are people to wear them. Shipping unwanted refuse to poor counties is treating them as a landfill and patting yourself on the back.
It's much cheaper to drink at home when you're unemployed though. I live in a country with seriously rising unemployment rate (highest in EU), and bars/night clubs are going bankrupt left and right here.
Demand for all those services (with possible exception of essential medical care) will shrink if big portion of white collar workers end up unemployed. Without a job people simply won't have much extra money to spend on them.
Yea, I've ran bunch of office PC's with nearly 20 year old components 24/7 without any stability issues (acting space heaters doing CPU intensive tasks in winter).
No need to replace a quality PSU until you start having issues.
Syria was an absolute hell under Assad for dissidents, can't blame America for that. Iraq and Libya maybe, though Saddam and Gaddafi weren't exactly great leaders to their people either.
Anyway, IMO the thing about Iran is that it's mostly Shia, and the population isn't that religious, especially not in cities. Unlike Syria, Iraq and Libya of the past, they aren't ruled by a secular dictatorship, but religious extremists. So, while US intervention in Iraq, Libya and so on created space for religious extremists to rise, I think getting rid of Iranian government could actually do the opposite - give a chance for secular opposition to rise.
> Syria was an absolute hell under Assad for dissidents,
And now its an absolute hell for everyone.
Is that really progress?
Humanitarian Crisis:
Over 60% of the population faces food insecurity.
Millions are internally displaced, often living in
overcrowded, inadequate, and unsafe, temporary shelters.
Economic Situation:
The economy is devastated, with skyrocketing
prices for basic goods, high unemployment,
and a massive depletion of household resources.
Infrastructure and Health:
Roughly half of all hospitals are non-functional.
Access to electricity, clean water,
and sanitation is severely limited.
Education and Safety:
Roughly 1 in 4 schools are damaged or destroyed,
affecting education access.
The security situation remains volatile,
with an elevated risk of violence and
armed conflict in various parts of the country.
As of late 2025, the situation remains dire, with
continued, significant, and long-term deterioration
in the daily lives of civilians.
> Each program has a fixed authorization period (for example, the 2003–2016 framework for up to 9 billion USD, with about 3.8 billion remaining by the last extension
you mean, the US should repeat 1953 coup with the hope the outcome would be different. Communists and most military dictators in modern history have been secular...
It's just not bombs that are a danger. You really don't want anyone to set the airplane on fire either, or start shooting people or holes into the fuselage.
AFAIK America has had plenty of shootings, and probably arson attacks too over that time period.
A year ago Air Busan Flight 391 burned completely after a single passenger power bank caught fire on the overhead compartment, and crew couldn't extinguish it. If that had happened on a plane that was in middle of an ocean for example, it would have been almost certainly a total loss with everyone dead, or at least ditching into the sea.
You're right that fortunately there aren't many cases of people causing fires inside airliners on purpose. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. When a single power bank can cause catastrophic results like this, I'm glad there's at least some monitoring of what people carry into the airplane in their bags.
You claim comfort from monitoring, and yet the easiest source of fire on a plane is z lithium battery. Which are expressly allowed.
In other words the TSA specifically does not seek yo prevent fires. The reason we don't have people setting fires on planes is because people don't want to do that. And if they did the TSA would be specifically useless in preventing it.
reply