Trade is always beneficial to both sides. I find it quite silly for people who say they support free trade but then claim this kind of bs. If the trade isn't beneficial, then they simply won't trade. And if is then they will receive a benefit from the trade. But trade is decisions by individuals, and shouldn't be up to donald tramp and his tramp crew. What your describing is asymmetry between countries in trade. The Hecksher Ohlin model describes the relationship quite well and the relationship is natural. For the same reason the whole complaing about how X country is subsidising their Y products and ruining our country, is just rich corporate bs. It's focused on business owners and not consumers. Why should I pay for a product when I know my marginal utility/marginal cost is higher with the other product? So I can put more money into some rich asshole's ass pocket? While you might be rich enough to sit complain about things being too cheap, some of us have bills to pay. And I see no reason to pay more so you can make money off the rest of us.
I take your line of argument as meaning "there are no legitimate medium or long-term interests for countries, for societies or for humanity". Or, alternatively, "the pursuit of short-term interests will always result in long-term good outcomes."
I really don't agree.
Were I ungenerous, I could interpret "I see no reason to pay more so you can make money off the rest of us" as "If local conditions permit me to loot someone else's future for my own present benefit, I will do so."
Furthermore, "trade is always beneficial to both sides" is clearly false, unless you define trade as "that which is always beneficial to both sides."
(I agree as a matter of fact that free trade and free markets are in general the most effective way to allocate capital, decide prices, maximize the realized value of goods, and provide individual economic autonomy. I do not, however, see them as end-goals in and of themselves. I do not see them as infallible in fulfilling personal or human values. I do not see them as especially resistant to having their function subverted.)
Well it depends on your use case. If you're using WSL to develop web apps then storing it all in WSL is fine, but if you want to use Linux tools to process a load of files in your Windows drive then it's not quite as smooth sailing...
Dune is soft sci fi. TBP is hard sci fi. They're very different formats of stories. Good hard SF generally doesn't have character development. In fact character development is a kind of subgenre called bildungsroman. I don't know why ppl these days expect characters to change as though it's some inherent part of a book. Some books are thought experiments or about world building. Part of reading for me is to try experiencing something novel. But on your hate for TBP, I'd say the huge fanbase, the Hugo committee and Obama would disagree with you on that one.
I don't "hate" TBP, so not sure why you chose this characterization. I just find it overrated. When I finished the trilogy, I wished I'd have gotten back the hours I spent reading it. That's neither the mark of a good book nor a good writer. And let's not pretend that the Hugo committee is some sort of arbiter of truth. Plenty of real stinkers (N. K. Jemisin anyone?) have won it.
Also, If I'm in the mood for hard sci-fi, I'll read Peter Watts who is (again) on a different league. Blindsight and Echopraxia navigate similar (but not only!) themes to TBP in a much more intelligent, thought-provoking and cohesive way.
I'm considering start reading TBP. So my question to you is why did you progress through the trilogy if you find it kind of substandard? Meaning, once you are done with first or even the second book what made you consider reading the next books in the trilogy?
This is an honest question as someone who is seriously considering reading TBP in near future.
Because enough people I know were raving and kept telling me it starts slow / payoff comes later. Well, I won't be listening to these folks again re: books that's for sure!
If you're dead-set on reading it, read the first book and if you don't like it cut your losses short right there. I say skip the whole mess and read Watts instead.
Generally less than with gasoline. Both require oxygen but hydrogen being stored in a high pressure tank, in year 2000 design concepts with a burst disc going up
