This implies that inequality is bad. I would rather argue that poverty is bad, and it is at an all-time low [1], consistently raising the HDI everywhere technology is introduced. Inequality in itself is only bad with regards to jealousy, which should be addressed through economics education.
Inequality as we see today is bad, regardless of progress on poverty.
Some people today could endanger the lives of those they disagree with, simply by doxxing them. Yet, they'll face little to no opposition in the courts because they're uber-rich. No one should hold the power of life or death on a whim.
Unless you think centralization of power is a good thing, you're wrong. Things can too easily go wrong when the word of one man, however talented and wise, is louder than the voice of millions of people.
Unless the company has a very negative outlook with outstanding debts (which Squarespace is not AFAIK), the price they have to pay to take over is much lower than the value of their assets.
And even with a negative outlook and debts (i.e. liquidation), extracting value without making bigger issues is not at all simple.
Note he's not a cybersecurity researcher, he's mostly a database engineer (a great one, making significant PGSQL contributions), so I'm not sure he's familiar with statistics and variety of backdoor attempts.
Not anymore. I can't imagine what media doesn't have a free type of publisher (Youtube for videos, Amazon or Lulu for text, itch.io for games, Github for software, play store for apps, etc), and getting traction is as easy as a Reddit/HN post.
If your content is good, it takes 5 minutes to get it to the entire world for free.
Not really. These days, if you have talent, spreading your work is as easy as making a Reddit or HN post and get traction in no time at all. What sinks probably isn't worth much attention. Of course, works are also made and not published anywhere, but people are free to stay a hermit and not publish their work.
Well yeah. From the government, for rich people. I don't know any poor people who can directly profit from corporate bailouts, tax cuts or has access to loans with such low interest rates. Even though as you say it comes from the population at large.
I'm the last person to defend welfare for the wealthy. I'm saying you're blaming the player rather than the game, which is an understandable feeling but is not productive to your goals.
And also to not die, since they earn money for their children. It's the reverse of the usual inheritance situation, where the state and the kids both want the person to die.
One problem is that globalization comes hand in hand with centralization. All industries have a tendency to cluster around a specific place with the most talent or existing resources.
While this gives disproportional power to some states, this also means no state gets all the cards since none has all the industries. China without its partners is nothing. This is a form of mutually assured destruction, which isn't ideal but better than most alternatives.
While I agree, what we see practically is different.
Who in the world has genuinely condemned the Uighyur atrocities that China continues to this day?
China is wielding a lot of clout using its supply chain hegemony.
The problem with manufacturing is that you cannot spring up factories and upstream vendors in an instant. Costs lot of money and time.
For many industries, looks like China has captured a good part of the value chain. So, costs of setting up a semi conductor fab is compounded because you have to set up not only the fab, but the whole ecosystem of vendors and suppliers required to run the fab, not to mention the logistics to transport raw materials and the finished goods.
China has industrialized itself at the cost of developed nations (unlike industrialization in other nations, which was built from within). It has fast-tracked its way to manufacturing top spot with blatant IP copying, aggressive value chain development.
>Who in the world has genuinely condemned the Uighyur atrocities that China continues to this day?
Parliaments, heads of state, etc have referred to this as "genocide" despite insufficient evidence (the view of US state department lawyers). I don't know what further condemnation you're looking for there.
(edit: *genocide is a significant label, whether China's mistreatment qualifies as that is probably to be determined, but evidence of mistreatment exists)
Right, and I guess we agree that on a condemnation scale of 1-10, being under suspicion of committing genocide, to the degree that nation states open formal investigations is not low?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty