A computer.

Go for the maximum chaos option. Britain should start issuing their own Swedish kroner. The Bank of England is just flat out counterfeiting billions in Swedish currency.

They should let them back in on the condition they abolish the British monarchy.

Sure. But it’s much funnier to imagine an assassin going to great lengths to plot a murder, when if they had just done absolutely nothing, the result would be exactly the same.

They do this by not labeling it a murder unless they find the murderer and enough evidence.

See that makes too much sense. A crazier theory would be more fun!

I know! It turns out that Japanese people are just really, really hard to kill. They’re ultra durable. Must be the food or something. The murder rate is low because it’s just incredibly physically difficult to kill a Japanese person with violence. In fact, Japan didn’t actually have an army in WW2. It was just one Japanese guy that went nuts and started rampaging across the Western Pacific. It took the atomic bomb to finally stop him.

Why else did we build the bomb? To flatten cities? No. That’s just what it took to stop the bastard!

I’m actually curious if anyone has any info on South Korea. I know about the fan death belief. And I also know of South Korea’s history with dictatorship. But in real life, have the two ever crossed? Has fan death ever actually been used to cover up a political murder?

I imagine many reporters wouldn’t be too eager to dig too deeply into a story like this. If the hypothetical murderers can get to a high profile judge, who has enough power to literally sentence former national leaders? If you can get through that person’s security, what hope does a reporter have of staying safe if they uncover something they shouldn’t?

Sane theory: the judge took his own life from the stretch.

Reasonably suspicious theory: he was murdered.

Comedy of errors theory: the suicide note is entirely genuine and sincer. The judge did intend to kill himself. However, he was murdered before he could carry it out!

See the article or provide other suggestions before sea-lioning.

They say they don’t want to replace workers. They say they just want to use AI to make existing workers more efficient. Very well; let’s hold them to their word.

To me, the real tragedy is that a shared identity really could be forged between these two groups. In another world, I can imagine a beautiful fusion between the Israelis and Palestinians, like two trees growing around one another.

So much of the conflict in the West is viewed from a Biblical lens. Israel represents the return of the Jews to their ancestral homeland! But really what present-day Israel represents is the spiritual descendants of the Biblical Israel ruling over and occupying the genetic descendants of the Biblical Israel.

Through this thread, a common identity could be forged. That kind of shared identity is the kind of thing that national identities could be forged from. Instead of “Israel” being defined as “the Jewish homeland.” “Israel” could be defined as “the home of the genetic and spiritual descendants of ancient Israel.” This conflict need not always be “the Jews vs the Palestinians.” It could simply be one type of Israeli and another type of Israeli. Some claim that name by blood. Some claim that name by religion. But both are united in one nation.

The nation of Israel has no right to exist, same as all other nations.

I don’t know about this as a blanket declaration. I’m no moral philosopher, but if I can imagine Trump saying this in a speech announcing the annexation of Canada, then there’s probably something morally wrong with.

I wonder what the legal basis for this is? Is there a constitutional provision that allows banning of parties that seek to end democracy?

If so, I wonder how that would work for someone that wanted to end electoral democracy, but not for any malevolent purpose? For example, instead advocated for a different or non-electoral democratic system, but still with noble intentions? For instance, under the German system, could a party lawfully argue to a system based on sortition?

In sortition, public offices are assigned by lottery, as we handle jury selection today. It doesn’t guarantee the most competent leader will be elected, but elections also clearly don’t select for the most competent leader. The main advantage of sortition is that, unlike elections, it doesn’t select for the most power-hungry and psychopathic members of society. It’s long been said that no one who actually wants power should be given it, and sortition is a way of solving that problem.

Could someone in Germany advocate for moving to sortition, or would that violate some constitutional provision meant to protect electoral democracy?

You think they have no employees at all? BYD had over five times the employees than Ford! And subsidies? In the US, we bailed out our auto sector during the Great Recession and heavily subsidize our auto sector via tariffs. Plus no car plant had been built in a generation without heavy state and local tax breaks and subsidies.

Seriously. What are you smoking? Cause I want some.

“They’re just heavily subsidized, not actually beating us!!”

Pure cope.

All auto makers are heavily subsidized, US automakers most of all.

And yet, the birth rate has only declined further.

People always point out that China “isn’t really a Communist country.” And while they certainly are different from the days of Mao, they forget that, from the beginning, the goal was to treat the market economy as a means to an end. The CCP values market economics because it allowed China to quickly industrialize. They don’t value capitalism for its own sake; they view it as a necessary evil.

Because of this, they’re able to do the kind of long term industrial planning that is unthinkable in the US. And there’s ultimately likely to be a lot less resistance to mass automation in China than in the US. If the state owns all the automated factories and distributes their goods fairly to all, why oppose automation? Automation is only a bad thing if it represents losing your livelihood, your method for keeping a roof over your head.

Plus, delivery drones have one fatal flaw that always gets glossed over - they’re loud as hell. Even if the tech can be made to work right, people simply don’t want to put up with that much constant high-pitched noise. If a company ever did figure out large-scale drone delivery, delivery drones would be immediately banned due to the sheer annoyance of the damn things.

You got downvoted because you didn’t try to answer your own obvious question first before asking others to answer it for you.