> To make the most facile counterpoint - the reason the Skyrim blacksmith doesn't care if the main character slays dragons is because they weren't programmed to. There aren't consequences either way.
In the actual game, NPCs do care, in fact they often won't shut up about it. They just don't let it affect their lives, which is the point the OP is making.
> When the metaphorical dragon comes to burn down your village, are you going to shrug and go back to looping your hammer_nail_03 animation?
When such a disaster strikes a village those are often scripted events that do change the loops of the NPCs previously inhabiting the village. They are programmed to adapt to a new cycle of rebuilding the village or even assisting the main character in dealing with the threat.
It's funny that the assumption is the NPCs don't care about anything that happens in the world when there are games with NPCs engaging in entire rebellions against their oppressors. It's just that NPCs don't care beyond their immediate objectives being fulfilled. Once the rebellion succeeds and the tyrant is overthrown most of them just settle back into their usual loop.
Everyone is banking on the current trade policy simply being temporary and whoever replaces Trump in the White House next will restore bilateral trade to normal. Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years?
Not saying I agree with it, because it sends the wrong signal, but I can understand the reasoning at least.
> Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years?
We aren't the ones who are destroying it, and we have a backbone strong enough to say this isn't good enough.
If what you say is true, then the next administration should understand how one sided the damage done to the relationship has been. No economic trade partner should have to tolerate attacks on their sovereignty and unreliable trade negotiators.
> Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years?
This was a common attitude 2017-2020, and they got disabused of that notion when Trump won in 2024. I would further argue the muted response during Trump I based on an idea that thing would "return to normal" emboldened Trump II - so that was not a winning strategy. The only country that seemed to have the correct read, and translated it into policy was China. Every other trading partner of the US seems to be floundering still.
because the next one might be vance? and vance again? and afterwards another similar rep?
EU should really have a plan to ditch US collective monopoly in all sectors, especially tech. Just like China we should have our own payment systems, mobile OS-es with mandatory bank support, own app stores, own cloud systems and so on... Call it gaulism or any other catchy phrase but US leverage should be reduced to minimum - EU should be able to threaten US with full ban on a subset of it's companies/trade. Now such thing is plain impossible to imagine
I am not sure how much of it is that, versus a mix of tariffs being paid by the recipient rather than the vendor, versus all his unpredictable behaviour being an inherent non-tariff barrier, versus it not mattering much what a deal with the USA even looks like if we all transition to other trade partners.
The UK's Neville Chamberlain is remembered for saying of an agreement with Hitler, "peace for our time"*, and by this agreement, appeasement; less well known was that he did pursue re-armament and mutual defence agreements while attempting to deescalate.
Hopefully we won't be here in 8 years wondering how the USA got carved up into a Canadian zone, a Chinese zone, a European zone, and an Aztec zone. That last one might be from a TV show I watched as a kid.
What I fear is Trump didn't break any promise done to their electors by starting this trade wars (he did when he failed to stop actual military wars and started more instead, but that's a different point). He was elected by stating that America was the greatest country in the world and that the others were freeriding on US wealth. I'm not sure his successor can entirely overturn this policy, if a majority of the US voters believe this - also because undoing the damage would require brokering deals less favourable than before to show good faith.
I live outside of the US so I might be misintepreting the situation, but I'm unconviced that a full u-turn will happen once he's out of the office.
A majority don't believe. A plurality voted for Trump in 2024 because of inflation and Biden not leaving Harris enough time to run a proper campaign. It's only the MAGA voters who don't understand how global trade is good for the US economy. But Trump's even losing some of their support with how badly the administration is running things for anyone but the very wealthy.
i dont think you can really move the blame from voters wanting trump's policies onto biden.
trump won the primary and then the election
republicans who didnt want his policies and could see that the inflation was in a large part the result of trump's handling of covid would have put somebody else up for president
I agree with you partially, although there’s some irony in the sense that a lot of what Trump’s voters want on paper is closer to the Democratic Party’s policy agenda.
Look into the policies and results the Biden administration had on American manufacturing versus the contraction in American manufacturing caused by tariff implementation. Biden even invested heavily in infrastructure in red states just because it was good positive ROI policy.
Now we see Democratic Socialist politicians like Zohran Mamdani doing things like cutting permitting red tape on small businesses and it’s the exact kind of thing the Republican Party claims it stands for.
The Tax Cut and Jobs Act actually raised taxes for lower wage Americans and increased the budget deficit, the exact opposite of typical Republican talking points on those subjects.
We have to remember that in a lot of cases, policy is not the same as messaging. This is especially pertinent in personality cults. This something the US hasn’t really experienced in the US presidency in quite some time if at all, and that has made it a…unique…experience. The idea of consistent policy is currently meaningless, because it’s all about whatever is on the demagogue’s mind today.
> whoever replaces Trump in the White House next will restore bilateral trade to normal
Unlikely. Customers are not there anymore. Emotional boycotts triggered by disruptions last until another big disruption happens. The next president of USA, with all this power, does not have the power to force each Canadian citizen to buy Kentucky Bourbon again. Resent caused by insults and abusive behavior work is everlasting.
His re-election suggests we need to. Even if good times return, we can now never be sure the bad are more than one election cycle away, and given the USA's bicameral government and staggered elections, that means 2 years, not 4.
The size of the court is set by statute. It would be pretty wild, even for this batshit court, to find a law increasing its size to be unconstitutional.
trump is just a reflection of voters. He'll be out but another one will come, be it vance, be it rubio, be it even jo rogan. The overall direction of american society wishes is clear
As many have said, Trump is a symptom of a deeper issue.
Once is an accident, twice is a pattern. It isn't that Trump specifically is the problem it is that there is a sizable enough part of the US population that will actively vote in that kind of governance.
Trump will leave, either via election, being ousted or via the Grim reaper. But the things that got him to that position are still very much in place and potentially even stronger than ever.
I said it before he even got elected the first time, he is an echo of the future that is coming. A prototype of something that will be handled more competently in future for better or worse.
Terrance McKenna once said that the worst US President is the current one regardless of the time. That is because they always seem to just accept what has come before and just stack more things on top.
Biden didn't remove the Trump Tarrifs on China for instance. But this goes across party lines and back for decades. Neither side is interested in tearing down the surveillance state stuff is a good example.
Pretty revealing how you had to hand wave away the entirety of "Liberation Day" tariff policy (literally the topic of this thread) that Biden did not do in office to do the perennial low-info voter "uniparty" observation, just because of China hawkishness.
The uniparty foreign policy blob that always does identical stuff regardless of party like: signing the JCPOA with Iran / killing the JCPOA and starting War with Iran, or rejoining UNESCO and paying back due obligations / re-leaving UNESCO and WHO... etc.
What is the value in anthropomorphizing it? Often I get the feeling that it's more about the sales pitch of selling these AI as general intelligence than it is about providing a truthful insight into how these models actually arrive at the output.
I don't think there is value per se, but it is just natural (at least in the environment I am in). I.e. when we discuss the analysis/code/ideas from one LLM or another, we describe it Claude/Gemini/Codex/etc did that and it comes like a person.
> The despair of the the unemployed skilled laborer is that losing his livelihood imperils the things he does value, family and the ability to provide for them.
Isn't that exactly a concern for those who find meaning in other things than their job? If you find meaning in your job then getting paid enough to support your family is obviously important, but it is ultimately a secondary concern.
> callers get automatically routed to an AI agent who asks if they are calling regarding the incident. If the answer is yes, then callers can receive information or updates, and if it's no, then the callers are transferred to a human.
Why use something as error-prone as an AI for this simple task? I hope they at least add a "Press 1 for Yes, 2 for no" as a backup.
Having airworthiness certification done by an independent organization not beholden to Boeing's shareholders makes much more sense to me. Giving the authority to Boeing to do its own airworthiness certification feels like the fox guarding the hen house.
But independents would need to be embedded into the company every step of the way, it would get to be point they would look exactly like Boeing employees.
But what does happen is audits where the work is checked
Don't forget the extra-fun deductible reset button that insurance companies get to hit every year. If your timing is particularly unlucky, you can end up paying that deductible twice (or nearly twice) for some health event.
If you have hundreds of thousands in medical bills at once, sure. That's good bang for your buck. If you've been paying monthly for medical insurance, get a tear in your eye that needs surgery, and now how to pay fully out of pocket for that surgery because it still isn't expensive enough for insurance to step in, that's a lot of money.
Of course, the post has no numbers, so it's impossible to judge the quality of the insurance plan. And the deductible isn't exactly a surprise, you know it when you get the plan, so paying this much when you have an emergency shouldn't be a surprise either. It still sucks if you can't afford better.
Doesn't a high deductible policy have lower monthly premium? Couldn't you have paid more for a policy with a lower deductible? The author chose the lower premiums and self insured (bet) they would not need to use it enough to meet the high deductible.
Female circumcision is often more brutal, but I agree with the stance that any mutilation of children is bad.
No matter what you think about circumcision, elective surgeries should simply not be performed on children until they're old enough to make an informed decision about their own body.
Well it is the underlying sexism in the world. Males is the group that society accepts and celebrates hate against. Many people really think it is okay to do things that go against certain minorities.
I hope you're aware that this particular argument only reinforced people in their existing positions, and has no chance whatsoever of convincing people that don't already agree with you.
Some times you can not change peoples mind. Especially when they are bad human beings. First step is to point out their evils. So that they can be ostracised from polite society and discussion. This is the tactic they have been using. So goal is not to change them as you can not change evil. It is to get the rest to kick them to curb.
In the actual game, NPCs do care, in fact they often won't shut up about it. They just don't let it affect their lives, which is the point the OP is making.
> When the metaphorical dragon comes to burn down your village, are you going to shrug and go back to looping your hammer_nail_03 animation?
When such a disaster strikes a village those are often scripted events that do change the loops of the NPCs previously inhabiting the village. They are programmed to adapt to a new cycle of rebuilding the village or even assisting the main character in dealing with the threat.
It's funny that the assumption is the NPCs don't care about anything that happens in the world when there are games with NPCs engaging in entire rebellions against their oppressors. It's just that NPCs don't care beyond their immediate objectives being fulfilled. Once the rebellion succeeds and the tyrant is overthrown most of them just settle back into their usual loop.