As I said, that's a very different definition of "always". In fact it's more like "sometimes".
Always, would literally mean nobody knows you even exist.
Any knowledge of your existence would mean you've lost some privacy.
The clear way would be for them to run their own instance. They could have a community for each product.
It's the thought that counts.
Says someone commenting to an unencrypted, publicly federated, social media platform.
I'm not sure "always" means what you think it means.
The company probably doesn't care about any global emergency.
The convincing argument would be about their total cost of onership.
You want to get your hands on any data they collected during their trial. Specifically cost data.
I'd bet they already realized the short term cost of getting the cars and installing chargers is more. That's likely why they decided against it.
Working up the numbers for long term fuel and maintance costs, comparing ICE and BEV, might be convincing. Especially if you can use their own data.
That may be an option then.
Still not convinced it's only way from here, or even the best way. It would depend entirely on the details.
Now I understand. And I just don't see that as inevitable.
Private ownership is too important to people individually. Without it, we don't even have any reason to expect any anything from our labor, since we can't be said to own even that. There isn't much room left for personal autonomy, if we don't have defacto ownership of our bodies, minds, and effort.
It would require some post-scarcity Star Trek technology to make our labor obsolete. Functionally infinite energy and matter replicators. The technological components would have to be in place, before the social changes become feasible.
If one is the other, than what's on which side of the equation doesn't really matter. They're still the same thing.
So sure a calzone is also a burrito. No difference really.
You keep saying Liberalism as if its only one thing. I've already mentioned three economic philosophies, each creating their own new set of rules. I'm honestly not sure we're talking about the same thing.
Social Liberalism came about as a response to Classical Liberalism creating the same oligarchic problem you just described.
If it happened once, it could happen again.
I don't know if it will, but its certainly possible.
Even if that's the case (I'm not sure it is), it doesn't make them the same thing.
It's not like there is a law of nature that says Social Liberalism can't make a comeback.
Burgers are sandwiches.
Hotdogs are tacos.
Burritos are calzones.
When they start getting lawyers involved. That's how you know when it genuinely leaked, and wasn't part of the publicity plan.
My bookmark goes directly to the subscription page. I never see the home page algorithm
That makes sense.
However it was recently pointed out to me that when you have to explain how obvious (or clear) something is, it really isn't.
Is it saying we won't be able to pretend democracy is at stake?
Or we won't be able to pretend the US is a democracy?
Or we won't be able to pretend the US, is a democracy at stake?
Oh! Is it the spaceing that hanging me up? I'm seeing "U.S. A Democracy". Should it be U.S.A. Democracy?
Of course he can!
Anyone can!
It just won't be enforceable.
Why are they swinging for the biggest of the world ending bad in the first movie?
I'm not impressed.
