I wonder if Valve will ever release an official desktop version of SteamOS? I think Linux adoption would really increase fast if there was a gaming focused Linux desktop distribution with the support of an established company. But does Valve want that? A full featured operating system is a lot to maintain and provide support for.
Neoliberals do not like populism. They're not fully committed to democracy, either. Or, at least, their support for democracy is conditional. Friedrich Hayek, one of the architects of neoliberalism, once said:
Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
I think it's worth noting that this is not unique or exclusive to neoliberals. Really, any ideologue or technocrat will only ever support democracy conditionally.
"Seized" makes it sound like they did something nefarious, but all they really did was just invest in their own rare minerals industry and we... didn't. And rightfully so, right? I mean, the government directing investment toward vital industries of national importance is socialism, right? And we don't do that. We let the market decide that stuff, and the market said, "let China do it."
I helped a family member with their Windows PC a few days ago and, omg, I hate using Windows. It's so bloated and unintuitive. It's a mess, and it seems to get worse every time I use it.
The Chinese model being superior to the US model is not a revelation, we've known this for decades:
…if a country's goal is economic growth above all other considerations, the truly winning combination would appear to be neither liberal democracy nor socialism of either a Leninist or democratic variety, but the combination of liberal economics and authoritarian politics…or what we might term a "market-oriented authoritarianism."
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, 1992
There's no better socioeconomic model than the Chinese model IF the goal is economic growth "above all other considerations." Should we value growth above all else? I don't think so, but many people do, especially the rich and powerful.
The US Federal government is at best dysfunctional and at worst actively and aggressively harmful. I think it's time for states to try and become more self sufficient and less reliant on the Federal government. Other nations are trying to divorce themselves from the US Federal government, American states might want to do the same thing.
It seems like automakers would much rather sell fewer premium and luxury units at higher margins than sell more units of affordable cars at lower margins. I suppose I understand why, but it does leave a large consumer segment unserved. That seems like a good opportunity for a competitor to come in and serve the unserved market, but none of the big legacy car brands seem interested and new car companies don't have access to the capital it would take to build the manufacturing capacity necessary to mass produce affordable vehicles.
Sounds like a great opportunity for foreign car companies, from, say, China, for instance, to come in and serve that under served lower end of the market. But then, tariffs.
The material difference isn't left vs right, it's status quo versus change.
Yes, but not everyone who wants change wants the same change, and so not every change candidate is going to appeal to every voter, even if most of them are looking for some kind of change.
I would agree that both Bernie and Trump were change candidates, but their differing levels of success shows which change message spoke more to the American people.
I agree that a political campaign promising change is the way to go (that's been true since Obama in '08), but which one? I think it's reasonable to assume that a change campaign built on economic populism is the way to go, but Bernie tried that twice and he lost twice.
I think any semi-intelligent person knows this is a parenting issue
Even parents who are actively trying to prevent their children from viewing porn might find it a challenge, given the sheer amount of porn on the internet and the proliferation of Internet connected devices.
But what about the kids whose parents don't take steps to prevent their kids from accessing porn? Do the rest of us just say, "well kid, if your parents don't care then neither do I. Watch all the porn you want."? Or do the rest of us have a responsibility to try and protect those kids, even if their own parents won't?
And if capitalists cared about inequality, I'm sure they'd be very worried about this.