MortUS

I completely agree about supporting Wikipedia. I actually do donate to Wikipedia via subscription and recommend others do as well. Being able to just download Wikipedia is also just such a boon. That being said, Wikipedia is just that, a pedia, like an encyclopedia. It's static knowledge. It can't rephrase things or simplify them or provide more context than it already has. A phonebook to a phonecall.

I would love to see a breakthrough in energy solutions for high-processing, but I doubt I will in my lifetime, and am pessimistic about such advances even being possible.

I mean, the fault lies with everybody - as we've expressed, the writing was on the wall the whole time.

I don't expect the ignorant children to prevent the adults from driving the car off the bridge (that's a metaphor for most Americans).

Well, I'm glad they spoke out publicly. Maybe they (World Governments) can put in a bit more elbow grease next time to prevent one of the world's largest militaries from being bought by an authoritarian country at discount prices.

The CIA can destabilize governments across the world.

Russia can take over U.S. "Democracy" right in front of the world.

I guess nobody has inside men anymore. Does Germany, France, Britian not have a CIA of their own?

My point is that these World Governments have kinda gotten soft if this is where we're at. Hell, the fact that Ukraine is still at war and not being physically backed is proof enough (though stepping in w/ Russia holding U.S. means that ship has sailed).

I feel like, if this were true, wtf are literally all the other countries' intelligence and agencies doing to prevent such a thing?

I'd like to think China, while mostly on Russia's side, would not want Putin having control over the U.S.

ofc most of NATO wouldn't want that either.

Is every other country incompetent, complicit, or is the U.S. just becoming its own oligarchy?

Once both major world militaries and hobbists are using it, it's jover. You can't close Pandora's Box. Whatever you want to call the current versions of "AI", it's only going to get better. Short of major world catastrophes, I expect it to drive not only technological advances but also energy/efficiency advances as well. The big internet conglomerates are already integrating it into search, and I fully expect within the next 5 years to have search transformed into an assistant-like chatbot (or something thereof).

I think it's shortsighted not to see the potential of accumulating society's knowledge and being able to present that to people in an understandable way.

I don't expect it to happen overnight. I'm not expecting iRobot or Android levels of consciousness any time soon, but the world is progressing toward the automation of many things - driven by Capital(ism) - which is powerful in itself.

All of this is bullshit.

What made them "particularly liberal"? They were exporting their "prisoners" to the American colonies. They were still colonizing other territories, extending their reach. They were still selling African slaves via slave trade through The East India Trading Company. The Empire was in full swing by the 1600s, through the 1700s, well into the 1800s where they started to lose steam through the century.

I've argued pretty much all of this already. But, from the article:

Unfortunately, none of that is true. The three ships bringing tea into Boston Harbor, the Dartmouth, Eleanor and Beaver, were privately owned, colonial-built, colonial captained and crewed ships. They were transporting tea belonging to the East India Company, not the British government. The British government lost nothing monetarily.

The British East India Trading Company was a British Corporation and heavily influenced by The Crown / British Empire. It was used primarily to facilitate trade between all the British colonies and outposts. This isn't even fringe history, which makes me believe that this article is not written in Good Faith.

This meant that imports would primarily be for the British Military Occupants and it's ongoing war to expand Westward. The Colonists would have to barter with the British Occupants to get anything they wanted.

That's the root cause of the unrest and eventual revolution. Independence from being under The British Empires thumb and allowing them to separate themselves as a new Nation. The tea was a play to encourage this change in that society, a new society that spanned ~150+ years away from Britain on new lands over a 1600-mile (2574 kilometers) landmass.

These articles always call them "smugglers" but what does that really mean? These people were born ON Americas soil and they were "smuggling" local trade to circumvent dealing with the British Occupants.

The British East India Trading Company was a oldtime Corporation and it certainly had a Monopoly on trade. Either you believe that Corporate and British Governmental Rule is a de facto good thing or you believe in Free Trade, but you can't have it both ways in this time period.

To get out from under The British Empire, which is pretty understandable during the time period.

That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.

If you can't tell the difference between the long-term British Surrounded and Integrated Livington and the Colonies growing apart from Britian across an entire Atlantic Ocean then there's nothing to talk about. Boston was only like Liverpool in a sense that it was under British rule. Many of the people living and working in Boston weren't even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.

At this point, I don't think you're arguing in Good Faith.

Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.

Again, this is different than being an entire Ocean away, constantly dealing with British Militia Occupation over a span of ~150+ years.

Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.

Benjamin Franklin was not the norm. He was born into a family that already had a demanding industry running which gave him access to money and resources to go to school and live relatively comfortably. Just because the city had a printing press does not make it "modern". This was not the norm for the time in the 1700s and especially for the majority of people living out on the East Coast for the last ~150 years.

Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.

I suspect you understand what I mean when I say "The British Militia", or maybe you're not familiar with The British Empire, but you're definitely being pedantic. You said yourself The British Empire was fighting a war to the West. They had to setup military bases to feed their war.

Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.

Clearly the colonists disagreed or there wouldn't have been a revolution to begin with. Unless you think Antifa somehow got mixed into the ~1600 mile stretch of the East Coast and rallied the people against the Angels of the British Empire. The colonists no longer identified as British and wanted free of British rule and British Military Occupation. Again, something that has happened throughout history to the British Empire...

No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.

No that's the propaganda you're pushing because you think everything was just roses and jumpropes in the 1600s and 1700s. Your multiple comments give the impression that you believe everyone was living in cozy brick houses and got their food from the market. You seem to believe that this land was already cleared, explored, ready and waiting for the British to ship in their houses. Nobody believe that this was the case, but you won't concede that people had to hunt and forage in a new land in which colonization is happening on new land? Get real.

The people growing up on that land, having to build their houses, having to build these towns, having to work in the area, these are the people who grew up away from Britian. These are the people who eventually got fed up with British Occupation and being under the British Empire's thumb. Once again... Something that's happened to The British throughout history...

According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.

Ya know I've read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since it's a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then there's the undecided. I'd argue that's the case in most 2 party systems. I don't see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and it's especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).

The "Loyalists" being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.

The "Patriots" being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.

The "Undecided" being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land they're exploring and homes they're building for themselves.

The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.

I don't disagree with that. Most causes don't have "universal support", especially politically. That's absurd.

No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India.

The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and it's base of operations was in fucking London during the period we're discussing. This was an international shipping company used to facilitate trade between the British colonies, which included the American colonies, throughout the world. The British had a stranglehold, a Monopoly on trade at this time when dealing, especially when dealing with the American Colonies.

I don't think you have a full understanding of how The British Empire used their wealth and power to try and colonize and influence the rest of the world. I don't think you have a full grasp of how different the time period of the 1600s and 1700s is compared to modern day and what those people had to deal with as they were forming a new society on this new land. I don't see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as you're as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.

Not your linked article, every time I try to get to it I receive 502 - Bad Gateway.

Operating in China and having 10% of your company publicly owned by an entity of the Chinese government are two different things

I don't think it is. Steam operates in China and even allows China to censor the Steam store page and games as needed. Valve doesn't take much issue bending over for China either in that regard. EGS and Steam are both Corporations and China is a large market.

And the cherry on top is their close relationship with tencent, aka one facet of the propaganda arm of the CCP.

I see this a lot and... do they though? From what I can tell, Steam also operates in China. Sure, Tencent invested in EGS, but not in any kind of controlling stake. Tencent does invest in tech and EGS is probably a solid investment.