CharonY

I don't disagree, autocracies have an inherent challenge related to successors as well as challenges to a centralized power system. But that being said, it would also depend on the underpinning support system. It again depends a bit on how specific one defines autocracies, but certain feudalistic and burecatic system have been known that stabilized society. An example is perhaps the Zhou dynasty, which survived for about 8oo years. Though the latter part was characterized by a reduced centralized power.

Generally speaking, sweeping generalizations and simplified connections are rarely leading to any insights. It tries to reduce complex situations into an one-dimensional element. So this sentence is already highly problematic as it doesn't really delineate a specific era nor does it specify who you mean. You also do not mention what you mean with "dominated". Do you mean direct conflicts? Or stability of the given group? Who do you consider democratic? Some ancient societies had more or less democratic elements. But taking one of the largest one, the Roman Empire, it lasted roughly from 500 years (ca. 500 BC to 27 BC, starting with Octavian's sole rule). In contrast the mentioned Persian (Achaemenid) Empire started at a similar time (550 BC) but ended 330 BC after the mentioned conquest by Alexander the Great. So the Roman Republic outlasted it by a fair bit. And there is an interesting interconncetion with many groups in the area, including Macedonia. Macedonia was a Persian vassal and fought alongside them during the battle of Platea (which happened just before the mentioned battle of Salamis). Afterwards Alexander I of Macedon had peaceful relationships with the Greek, but his successor started conflicts with Athens. Ultimately they part of various conflicts, often with shifting allegiances. But ultimately suppressed and finally ended Athens' dominance. In that regard, it is perhaps relevant to note that the governance system of ancient Macedonia is (afaik) not really known. Evidence points to an assembly of groups around the King, but there is disagreement if the power is concentrated with king or whether the power is shared (which again, makes arguments based on democracy vs autocracy difficult). And this is interesting because Macedonia was also a check on the then dominating power of Athens in the region. Also one should add, many pre-modern democracy failed, but so did autocracies so to draw a links specifically to the governmental form to their failures does not provide a lot explanations to what happened.

I think the article is missing other developments, which makes it even worse. Universities in North America are increasingly run like corporations, where students are considered clients and professors service providers. Freedom of teaching and research is kinda hanging on, but a lot of power has shifted to administrations. This, however, puts in question how independent universities can be to external pressures. This is especially problematic considering the funding situation. IMO, the situation has been worsening over the years and is now basically accelerating.

I think the public opinion of him changed once he got more public exposure outside of product announcements. Such as when the kids were trapped in a cave. I also think we had younger and more impressionable members for a while here back then.

Now that is efficiency.

That seems like his business model. Provide a promising prototype, but heavily oversell future potential. Use "iterative development" to continuously filch funding. Leverage the sunk cost fallacy and promise a solution just around the corner. Once it becomes too obvious that it is a non-starter, distract with another stretch goal (let's build robots, or just go to Mars) and start all over again.

There is a reason why almost all economists warn against tariffs and trade wars. Moreover, one can look an analysis of the tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration. Regarding manufacturing: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ There is no evidence to believe that this time around things won't be even worse.

It basically shows their hand. It is not about diversity or any related policy. It is about establishing white nationalist values and erasure of anything that counters it. This includes history, academic inquiry or common sense (not to mention, common decency). This is also highly questionable. The issue is not so much putting one's own country first, but the way it is done. As folks like Trump and quite a few of his cronies are apparently not very knowledgeable on economic matters, the things they are doing, including dismantling government structures and starting trade wars, are actually weakening the American economy. This is especially noticeable as the USA following the Biden administration had one of if not the best post-COVID recoveries and was the envy of much of the world. Turns out, slogans are not necessarily true. Edit: I should also add the specifically "America First" is a slogan used by America Fascists prior to the US entry to WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee). And in a way that is a more accurate reflection of what the Trump government means. Not a strengthening of the US based on objective metrics. Rather, a strengthening of white America. It was discussed at length during Trump's first presidency whether his affinity to white nationalism was a means to galvanize his base, or whether he would actually enact related policies. And now we have an answer to that.

I assumed that in this forum this topic would not lead to any arguments, but some of the posts in the DEI thread lead me to believe that potentially there are different opinions on that matter. As mentioned in the other thread, the Trump administration has been censoring topic they deem DEI, including the Enola Gay, black medal of honor recipients (now reversed https://www.military.com/history/highest-ranking-black-medal-of-honor-recipient-erased-pentagon-dei-purge.html) and used it as a pretext to censor research, via NIH freezes and so on. That alone should be chilling sign to all free speech advocates, but they extend things further beyond the governmental systems. He threatened investigations into Democratic members of congress for criticizing conservatives, had a permanent resident (Mahmoud Khali) arrest for pro-Palestinian protests on campus (they originally though he was on a student visa, which he was not). In a broader sense the Trump administrations has threatened to cut funding for universities which do not comply to their vague DEI and antisemitism directives, started investigations and lawsuits against press and media for coverage he didn't like (some already resulting in million dollar bribes, er, settlements), targeted private law firms to scare off attorneys to take cases that challenge the administration. In short, the administration is doing everything that they accused the "woke" left of potentially doing. I would then be interested to hear why folks might think that these might not be examples of First amendment violations and how precisely the (often weak) implementations of measures such as DEI can lead to to folks to turn to the right, whereas actual policies targeting free speech is suddenly acceptable. Or do we just simply have to accept that world has turned irredeemably into an asylum, where everyone lives in their own reality? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-campaigned-as-a-protector-of-free-speech-but-critics-say-his-actions-threaten-it

I suspect it depends on the specific context (e.g., if it is food additive) and the specific labeling requirements in a given jurisdiction. Fundamentally autolysis refers to self-digestion by existing enzymes (as opposed e.g. to adding further enzymes to break things down). So yeast extract without the autolysis could refer to the same thing but leaves the door open for addition of other enzymes, and other processing methods.

Well Musk had at least something. The other one doesn't understand the concept of a concept of a plan.

That is fair, but based on at least some reports, folks are wary but focus more narrowly on their own path to independence. Some in fact have pushed for closer ties to the US in order to accelerate Danish independence. And compared to the last election that party (Naleraq) did make gainst. But the Democrats party made even more gains, which, similar to the previous ruling party is planing on slow independence. I think the politics there is difficult with long-existing tensions with Denmark as well as social and economic challenges dominating their thinking for a long time. The US debate had likely an influence, but likely not as much of a dominating one. I think you have good point regarding folks who think that they are good at everything. Or they may have the tendency to surround themselves with similar folks as them because they see them as an extension of their own genius. This is a bit of a conundrum as one would hope that a good politician would surround themselves with experts to balance out their expertise in moving the system (I see quite a bit of failures in both elements in case of Trudeau- he seems to be better at reacting to crises than handling overall management). Yet, often politicians often do not do that and prefer to surround themselves with folks that help them stay in power. We do see an extreme case of it not happening in the US and I think a big failure of Poilievre was to align himself with Republican tactics way too early, which now has become toxic. An although campaigns have not started yet, he campaigned staunchly on anti-Trudeau sentiments, and it seems that re-alignment is tricky. Who knows how ideologically aligned he really is with the US style right wing, but now he has to be careful to disentangle himself while not offending his base too much. I doubt that given the current economic situation his repeated appeals to tax cuts is going to play that well anymore. But as you said, who knows?

The Musk approach to autonomous driving? I am sympathetic to this stance, but big challenge in this field is that convincing folks or even establishing dialogue is increasingly difficult. I think the biggest failure is that many Dems assumed that facts and empathy can convince folks whereas the Reps leveraged fear and anger. Where Dems were successful was when they built up fear of repression (i.e. rolling back protections of marginalized folks). That obviously does not resonate with Reps with the big exception of folks with what is called lived experience. I am not sure how that issue could be resolved in the current communication landscape.

They do leverage the situation for gain more concessions from Denmark. I also don't think that for them it does not feel quite as threatening as for Canadians.

I don't think that there is a lot of wondering here. It is the a classic spin, but at least not an outright lie. Pretty much old school, compared to what is going on elsewhere. One thing that is a perhaps unsurprising b is the fact that the Canadians basically react to the same thing as everyone else: a common foe. Now, a difference is here of course that the threats are much more real (then, say Immigrants or DEI), but it again shows to what the electorate is responding strongly to.

Oh, is it Games of Thrones thing? I was totally confused about the couple last posts.

Well, and the quality of his builders. If that one went wrong, there wasn't much to do about it. Jackie Chan famously replicated many of Buster Keaton's stunts, including the falling wall. IIRC it looked less massive, but I think it clipped his shoulders. And perhaps some of the worst injuries he suffered (either of them) were from seemingly simple stunts. Just to get back on-topic, I think that the idea of an Overton window is a bit outdated. I think ultimately the idea of the window requires a common set of standards that are broadly used. But the internet has fractured this consensus, and I think it mostly coincided with Trumpism. This is not to say that MAGA gleefully adds to the fracturing gleefully, but I just don't think that they are the cause. Rather they are using the changing system. This, incidentally is what worries me the most. I do think that surprisingly MAGA has figured out the new world. It is run on emotions, rather than facts. It is based on occupying attention rather than than paying attention to real issues. Meanwhile, the folks how are not on the crazy train still hold onto concepts that likely are not working as they used to anymore. And I suspect that this is at least one of the reasons why folks get increasingly attracted to the lunatic right. What I am curious about is then whether a new consensus is formed when the issues start hitting them personally and directly rather than in the abstract, or affecting folks they don't care about. Because there might be a consensus to be had around selfishness. Which is sad in an Ayn Rand way, but I am not sure whether we even got that.

Interestingly, the former conservative premier Harper has claimed that Carney is taking unjustified credit for the handling of the financial crisis, as the credit should have gone to the Finance Minister. But a Flaherty staffer has a different opinion: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-carney-financial-crisis-1.7473091 That actually sounds pretty positive to me as a whole, as it suggests that Carney has worked well with folks on the individual level. Carney will be surrounded by a lot of politicians, so being the guy with the ideas could also do good things (hopefully).

To count social media as learning is a bit of a oxymoron. I am moderately certain that the latter shapes perception but not by information, but which political or other bubble they see themselves in. Especially the political dimension should be considered. In the US, the spread of acceptance for nuclear power is lower than for other power sources, but it shifts depending on how the question is phrased. For example, left-leaning folks are more accepting of nuclear power when couched in terms of carbon emission and global warming and supplementing renewable energy (rather than replacing).

! Moderator Note There is nothing to discuss here. This is not a place for personal grievances.

Especially the billionaires who, after losing the GPD of a country is still the richest person on Earth. I just don't get why folks worship him or even think that he is one of them.

I think one somewhat interesting aspect is that Carney's strengths, are to a large degree also his weaknesses. For example, it is a benefit that he can distance himself somewhat from the Liberals, and considering the general anti-establishment and anti-politician attitude, him running as an outsider could be beneficial. Conversely, it means he is less plugged into politics and is likely less experienced at campaigning. His role in central banks (and his general education and career) gives him some insights into financial matters, but then he could be considered part of the financial elite, as MigL mentioned.

*groan* Didn't Trump say at some point that he wasn't MAGA? Probably not entirely helpful...

For some reasons I am not surprised that a company led by a convicted felon whose organizations and business have been found to commit fraud, is in fact fraudulent.

And from what I read, he doesn't even have the practical job experience of a real lawyer or even salesman. What struck me was how (in my mind) ineffective his response to the Trump threats were. The substantial part were not different than what Trudeau said, which would arguably be fine, though not great. But the rest was really just a call to cut taxes and some grievances regarding the outgoing Canadian government. I suspect he needed to play to its base but I think it is part why the polls are swinging so wildly. It looks to me that he would be pretty much a center pick. The question then to me is how much of a center Canada still has. Looking at the polls, it looks on average still healthier than the US situation, but I cannot keep wondering whether that is just a transient phase.