Surely you must notice that "Modern American Liberalism" and "Liberalism" are two separate terms? "Liberal" can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you're quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term "liberal" is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it's still used in the common/typical/"original" sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).
And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. "Conservative" is a significantly more broad term than "liberal" and it's impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn't generally a perfect match. But there does exist "conservative liberalism", which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they're a bit more... fascist.
Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.
Also calling modern American liberalism "socialism", even "democratic socialism", is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can't just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.
For the most part, "lib" is synonymous with "so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate", i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.
"Liberal" isn't only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. "Liberal" is used to mean someone who believes in "free-market" capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It's pretty much synonymous with right-wing "libertarian" ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it's still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or "fundamental rights" contexts though.
Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered "social liberalism" or even "modern American liberalism", which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a "free market" will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the "left" ideology. In a full political view though, it isn't leftism.
The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word "progressive" was starting to be seen as "radical" (and therefore negative). Progressives started using "liberal" instead, and it became a way to say "I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount". When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.
I know everyone hates HOAs because they're usually petty and dumb, but this is where I think they'd actually be helpful. Designate certain neighborhoods as "quiet zones" where similarly obnoxious activities (that have reasonable, quiet alternatives) are banned: no motorized leaf blowers, lawn mowers, souped-up motorcycles or muscle cars.
Or... hear me out... we can have laws on emissions and noise pollution (which mostly already exist in cities) and cops/government officials that actually enforce them (and by "enforce" I don't mean shoot somebody after arriving on-scene) instead of relying on a private entity to dictate what happens in your living space
That's not generative AI... it's not really the same thing. The US military has been using machine learning for like 6 decades by this point and AI for 7, and it's been a part of anti-air tracking / ballistics computers for a while. Many modern military vehicles have relied a LOT on AI for a really long time, at least when it comes to weapons systems (targeting and ballistics especially) and important warning systems. Plus AI is pretty important for the US military's logistics.
It's an extremely important technology for the military to research, even in scenarios where it's far before it's really "ready" for practical use, in this case replacing human pilots with AI.
Conservatives are super pro-sales tax because it's regressive taxation. A common fake-libertarian argument is "we don't need income taxes, we can just have sales taxes".
It's if you see a differentiation between "mental illness" and "mental disorder". It makes sense that "mental illness" can be something which is detrimental to health or debilitating (like anything that gives a significantly warped and unreasonable perception of reality) and that may be non-lifelong/non-chronic, while "mental disorder/disability" is exclusively neurological differences that are lifelong/chronic and usually apparent during development (Autism, ADHD, mood & anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, etc.), imo.
It's like how "illness" can refer to a spread disease or sickness and isn't just disabilities. I see no reason to separate physical and mental illness from each other. Same with disorders. They're just illness and disorder/disability.
This kind of stuff is absolutely the number one failure of Democrats. They want to play fair and by the rules, so when there's opposition to their appointments they just lie down and accept it until the Republicans get exactly who they want. Meanwhile the Republicans will lie, cheat, and slander their way to anything they want, including getting ultra-conservatives in on positions that aren't supposed to be political.
Biden's been way better in this regard which is part of what makes him way better than previous Democrat presidents. But I still don't have high hopes for "the party of compromise" in getting progressives in these kinds of positions. In particular, we all remember what happened at the end of Obama's presidency with supreme court judges and Roe v Wade.
I should say up to 90-96%. It depends on the methods and the type of fuel you use. Currently widely used nuclear technology is more like 30-50% recyclable. That number is able to be increased by using more recyclable fuel technology, which is available.
French nuclear waste in total is 0.0018 km³ (three olympic swimming pools) after 8 decades of using nuclear and primarily using nuclear for 4 decades, so I'm not so sure how you imply that the "state of nuclear waste" is bad. Even with the "inefficient" ways of using/recycling nuclear, there's not a lot of waste produced in the first place.
Only ~10% of French waste is actually long-lived too, meaning after a few decades to 3 centuries, 90% of it will no longer have abnormal radioactivity. Meaning the radioactiveness of the waste just goes away on its own after a moderately short period of time and it basically just turns into a big rock.
The US produces less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of nuclear waste per year in total, so it's not exactly hard to manage. Wind and even solar take up a lot more space than nuclear for the same energy, even if we were to consider decades worth of nuclear waste storage. Nuclear power production has about 130x higher density than wind, and needs 34x less space than solar PV.
And that's considering that the US doesn't even use their used nuclear fuel efficiently like, say, France. 96% of French nuclear fuel is recycled by them, while the US doesn't really recycle their nuclear fuel. Thanks to free market capitalism fuel recycling never got commercialized in the US, so the over of century of usable fuel we have in recyclable nuclear fuel is just wasted. It's cheaper to just buy new fuel rather than recycle, so of course companies don't recycle. American problems I guess.
If space were a big issue than nuclear would still win by a long shot even over the long-term. There's very little of it produced, it doesn't take up much space to properly and safely store for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and the power production is extremely reliable so you don't need miles upon miles of giant batteries to store excess power just in case.
for some reason i find it funny how the animals more related to humans are the more ruthlessly violent ones. apparently bonobos are much more violent than chimps, and orangutans are less violent than gorillas
it makes me wonder how aggressive early australopithecus was compared. apparently they did a lot of cannibalism so probably at least slightly more than non-australopithecus humans. they probably weren't even close to as aggressive as chimpanzees considering how significantly weaker they were though
Surely you must notice that "Modern American Liberalism" and "Liberalism" are two separate terms? "Liberal" can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you're quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term "liberal" is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it's still used in the common/typical/"original" sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).
And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. "Conservative" is a significantly more broad term than "liberal" and it's impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn't generally a perfect match. But there does exist "conservative liberalism", which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they're a bit more... fascist.
Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.
Also calling modern American liberalism "socialism", even "democratic socialism", is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can't just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.
For the most part, "lib" is synonymous with "so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate", i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.