InputZero

Agree with the sentiment, but dang is that a bit of word salad. I'd have gone with genocidal settler or colonial apartheid but both together feels clunky.

Foundations by Isaac Asimov. It's a great story but it's a tough read. Way better as an audiobook.

I wish I could tell you more because my area did that, we've done what we both agree is what needs to happen. We elected a third party candidate as our representative. Not as our president, that's insane lol. Also I don't know how what we did would apply to the United States other than just saying grass roots organizing. Saying even that much reveals more about me than I'm comfortable with online.

So I don't have a hat in this race because I can not vote. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how a government is formed in the United States. The odds of stopping a Democrat or Republican from not winning the 2024 presidential election are futile. If I could vote, but I can't, if I voted third party I would be putting my effort into what I know is a futile effort. That seems morally the same as ignoring it because I know the results would be identical. The only moral option I would then have is to choose the least bad option. The most moral option would be off the table for me.

Actually the president used to be less important than they seemed. The United States Supreme Court decision that president's are practically kings changes a lot. ~~The other side of this is that the president doesn't really matter. The president really only executes the will of Congress.~~ It seems to me that if you really wanted to do the moral thing, it would be changing the roots of the problem. Not a single branch. It's the hearts and minds of grass roots organizationa you want to change long before anyone walks up to a polling booth.

Just saying, as someone who can't vote.

That sounds like every job I've ever had. Working so hard everyone is making themselves sick and the moment you're not at 100% you'll be let go for underperforming. God forbid you actually ask to be paid for the overtime you worked, good luck chump. Then some other desperate soul will take your place until they're chewed out and replaced. We weren't even called employees, we were human capital. The worst part is I'd do it all over again if that meant I would have a paycheck again. At least then I'd be able to afford rent, cause if I don't find a job in a few months I lose my apartment. Apparently I'm living in the greatest part of the world.

It's been discussed in other comments that because Google is A/B testing their old maps model against a new AI model that only some people are experiencing it. It's probably only being tested in some areas.

They're very supportive when you need it because that's their job. They're being nice to you so the boss doesn't have to be. Imagine instead of an entire department dedicated to preventing you from taking your boss to court, there was no such department. The world boss actually has to treat his employees with respect, for a change. HR are not your friends, police are not your friends. Anyone who's job it is to hold you back is not your friend.

You'd have to also threaten to assassinate their inheritors from taking the estate, or just take the estate. Either way that's violence. The question then becomes is it okay to use the Master's tools to build your own house, to which my answer is no I can't. I can use the Master's tools to tear down their own houses. I may be a bit too idealistic though.

Here's my best answer:

elrik had breakfast for breakfast.

Although I have to admit that I hesitated for quite a while. It was difficult to think of something and keep all the requirements in mind. Alas, I am only human, lol.

This is why you won't see real change until we stop slapping corporations with fines and start slapping executives with jail time. That is literally the only way to break the cycle.

Can't be said enough.

I don't disagree with your criticisms of the UN. They're not a perfect organization, and UN membership shouldn't be some standard of sovereignty. However, diplomats have always been able to talk whenever they want, the problem that the League of Nations and then the UN tried to address was all the backrooms conversations nations used to have that were part of the causes that lead up to the first world war. Having an international platform every nation needs to at least listen to is better than the alternative. Arguably, untill now the UN has succeeded, there hasn't been a WWIII.

This is a tangent of that but I thought superposition was the state. The state of being some amount of many states at once. It isn't positive and negative at the same time but some amount of positive and some amount of negative for some period of time. It's still one state that is just somewhere between a number of states.