edit: oh it's not copyleft, but specifically quid pro quo so tesla gives you their patents if you give them yours

I get the sense that the article very much believes Americans speak more traditional English.

are you suggesting that destroying things, results in improvement in the long run? I don't know that I could be farther from agreeing with that. If starting from scratch was better, why wouldn't we be doing it voluntarily at frequent intervals? It just seems easily dismissed as entirely incorrect.

> The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake.

I don't think this describes the economy, it just describes some of the metrics we use to gauge the health of the economy. burning down the internet and killing everyone that understands it might result in another dotcom boom, but would you say the economy is more healthy than some other reality where the internet continued to exist with no reset and only has smaller incremental gains?

I get really worried when I see people glamorize equality post-war...post-war times are not good times for the middle class. The most equal wealth humanity has ever had is during caveman times, but that is not the goal.

war does not make things better folks, I hope that's not what OP was trying to say, but just in case let's be very very clear about how awful war is for progress and humanity.

You've proved my entire point in your very first sentence and then go on to say I don't seem to understand how scientific models and theories work.

> Nobody believed in geocentrism due to "Science"...

This isn't a serious argument. Feel free to look up the works of Aristotle, who is sometimes called the first scientist.

I don't have the energy to address the rest of your incorrect conjecture.

You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.

> It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"

Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.

If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.

Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.

The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.

I imagine taking the inflation rate (that was growing exponentially) from nearly 300% yearly to less than 3% monthly in less than a year isn't likely to be wildly popular to all the non-crypto grifters.

You can't just expect people from other countries to communicate as effectively as people who grew up right down the street from each other. Yes, it's objectively discriminatory, but not for hostile reasons.

Either way, here you go:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fac...

> "Restrictions are in place exclusively at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the direction of the United States Secret Service," spokesman Lars Dalseide wrote in an email to USA TODAY. He called the claim that the NRA is banning guns at its conference "incorrect."