If you're genuinely curious about why people's views on Israel have shifted you could've got yourself excellent information with a simple prompt as such:

"Give me a brief neutral summary backed with reliable sources on the state of tensions in the Middle East today and the role played by Israel and other states. Help me understand why people's views on Israel have shifted so much since the start of the war in Gaza?"

Absolutely not.

Sundar's education is: IIT-Kharagpur Bachelors in Eng Stanford Masters in Eng Wharton MBA

Maybe you're thinking of the last one

I think you're strawmanning my point - no one asks you to act like a philosopher 24/7, but this exchange shows you're very far away from that bar.

You're suggesting that the bar arbitrarily set by a councilmember on what counts as sufficient disruption to hurt expediency* trumps what seems like just clapping and agreement -- one would argue is clearly protected speech per the 1st amendment and I'd argue squarely within the spirit of why we have public comments in the first place?

I think that's a pretty slippery slope and enables projecting power through process, not something we want from our elected officials.

*an aside - why is expediency the goal? if this is a contentious topic, schedule more time so the focus is on receiving public feedback!)

What is a philosophical statement?

One tendency I've noticed is that people well versed in philosophy can communicate well. Just anecdotally. Not something I am seeing here in this response.

- better safety nets paid through higher taxes and closing down loopholes (such as buybacks)

- stronger regulatory enforcement to reduce the power of monopolies / monopsonies

- stricter rules around tax-payer investments / subsidies into companies (sure SpaceX gets to have billions to shore up our competitiveness but there must be a mechanism for the tax payer to have board representation)

etc. etc.

The list goes on. Honestly it doesn't take a lot (besides political will and escaping the capture of Citizens United) to move the needle so that the median income or bottom 10th percentile lifestyle meaningfully improves while we no longer have wealth horded to the level of having centibillionaires.

It does require a government that operates with much less corruption than we have, so it is more idealistic than not, but very easy to imagine.

Have I got something wrong or is there this belief that Meta doesn't hire any Americans?

Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Please don't engage in whataboutism. One should be able to criticize China's actions without calling into discussion actions of other nations.

Do you go about threads criticizing US govt actions drawing parallels to similar actions in other regimes like China or Russia?

Why did it quickly grow?

Do the republics in the Caucasus region (and Russia) count in this calculation or not?

Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?

Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

If the premise is that folks crossed over the unprotected Southern border, Maine is basically about as far as one can get while still remaining in the contiguous 48.

We had billions of COVID shots. Even if there was a weak correlation with 1% of the people going on to get rapidly worsening cancer we'd be seeing cancer spikes everywhere. Do we have anything remotely close to that in real life?

Why'd you call him Clott Adams?

I don't see subtlety here. As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone.