Honestly, they'd be horrified at a bunch of things, some of which are on MAGA, and some on progressives. Maybe we shouldn't be taking the ideas of slaveowners from over 200 years ago as seriously as we do.
There's a whole other group out there who argues that doing anything to stop the bottom panel is communism, and communism is bad and terrible (according to people who have never read anything about it except Ayn Rand). You'll have to fight with them over what constitutes "real capitalism".
I'll be over here noting the whole notion of profits going predominantly to the owner of capital is flawed to begin with.
AWS has a multitude of different offerings with confusing pricing structures. They have zero incentive to make them understandable.
That said, chances are your new company has people who understand this already and know how to manage it. Hopefully, they'll put up some guardrails that prevent you and others from running up a big bill. I wouldn't expect a junior programmer to know how to do this, but that's ok as long as the company is managed right. Granted, that can be a big if sometimes.
I mean, a lot of that was bombed away, and then there was a metal shortage. They didn't have much choice.
And they do still have some. Germany and Austria both produce weapons. The Abrahms main gun is a German design. France makes a lot and sells it to whomever, too. The Exocet is an anti-ship missile of theirs, and they haven't always been discriminating in who they sell it to. The times they've been fired in anger has been mostly at the ships of other NATO members.
As the article notes after '94 the number of Democrats the NRA could support steadily dwindled.
Cause or effect? Did NRA contributions dwindle because Democrats changed their mind, or did Democrats change their mind because NRA contributions dwindled? I know what the article says, but that's not the only possibility.
No amount of political donations to Democrats, or anyone else, should have insulated them from the consequences.
Which is nice to say, but we all know how that works. If both parties were in their pocket, it's far less likely they would have been a target.
An issue with only having two political parties is that a special interest group can split their donations to both election candidates and win either way. At some point, the NRA forgot that and only funded one side. That left them vulnerable when there was widespread financial fraud in the organization; only one side was willing to come to bat for them.
In 1992, LA had riots sparked by police brutality. Since then, the LAPD has striven to uphold the utmost standards in police work . . . lol, no, they made sure ACAB applies double to them.
I think your breakdown is spot on. It makes no sense for Russia to do this.
One of the less comfortable aspects of supporting Ukraine is that we are supporting the military-industrial complex as a necessary consequence. To be clear, helping a nation fight off an invader is one of the better things NATO has done. However, it can't be disentangled from all the money the MIL is getting.
Take it one step further, and US withdrawal from NATO (official or otherwise) necessitates the EU strengthening its own MIL. Which means that within a generation, they're likely to have the same overreaching MIL influence on their politics that the US does.
I think this statement should be seen in that context. The existing MIL in the EU sees a big opportunity, and is taking notes from their US counterpart.
I honestly don't know what to do about that. Withdrawal of support to Ukraine is not an option, and if the US is backing off, the EU needs to step up. But that gives strength to an industry that doesn't deserve a higher position at the table than they already have. Putin lost the war in many ways the day he invaded, but forcing the EU's actions might be one last big fuck you while he jumps into his grave.
Even before Zuckerberg, these groups often have a religious coating. US law enforcement lets religious groups do whatever they want until the problem becomes undeniable. Even then, they drag their feet, and Republican politicians look sad while talking about how religious liberty is being destroyed.
Honestly, people make more of this than it is. I say that as someone whoes reading level in the 8th grade was rated "post-High School" in tests. Though IIRC, that particular test wasn't considered accurate past a 10th grade reading level or so. Suffice it to say, though, I was always rated at least a few grade levels higher than my actual grade level when it comes to reading.
If you pick up examples of post-High School writing, you'll find it's hard to read. Basically, check any abstract on a paper for a technical field. It'll be full of field-specific jargon and long sentences. Copy and paste it into a writing assistant like Hemmingway, and it will scream at you to simplify the sentence structure.
Converting to terms of Lexile level, Fellowship of the Ring has a rating of 860L. By a conversion chart, we would expect 50% of students to be able to read it by the spring of 4th grade. Even the bottom 10% of students can read it by the beginning of 10th grade.
That's a relatively hard book; harder than what most fiction asks of you. Of Mice and Men, which is on plenty of High School reading lists, only has a Lexile level of 630L. Conversely, Romeo and Juliet can go up to 1260L (though this varies depending on the editing of different editions).
The Greatest Generation was horney. Really horney. Once they got that Hitler fella sorted, they went home and literally fucked Baby Boomers into existence.
He's the guy who looked directly at the eclipse, so yeah, he'd probably do that, too.