I suggest the counter is to stop respecting Intellectual Property for anything registered in the US, not just US Copyright but also Patents and Trademarks.
The US doesn't actually make much and is hugely dependent on Intellectual Property to extract wealth from other people making stuff.
I don't think it's cowardice, I think it's a very purposefully trying to normalizing it.
Nah, at the "leadership" level Religion is just another kind of scam.
It's only the riff-raff who are genuinely believers in that stuff and even those pick and chose the parts of it they follow (you will notice that, for example, almost none of the "believers" in Abrahamic religions care about God's Commandment against Greed or the lesson of Jesus kicking out the Money Lenders from the Temple).
Obviously they're both doing a Roman Salute!
(Doesn't even need a /s because the Nazi salute is literally the so-called Roman Salute)
I think I used a wrong methaphor (sorry!) because the whole death thing carries a lot more implications than what I meant to convey.
In a Trolley Problem the A/B choice is fixed, is a once-only choice and its effects cannot be undone. My point is that, unlike a Trolley Problem, even in the US deeply flawed voting system the choice is (so far) not an irrevocable one time only choice - there is a new choice every 4 years, most effects from the previous choice can be undone (the chosen one of the next cycle always has the option to undo most of what the chosen one of the previous cycle did) and the actual choices available at voting time are not fixed and can be influenced before the actual vote (Parties can be convinced to field different candidates).
My theory is that in part Presidential Elections in the US system are a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, in that for each Party a candidate is fielded whose political offerings are a certain approportioning of the "cake" amongst different societal interests and the voters who care about such societal interests can chose to Accept or Reject, and given the cyclical nature of the choice, one can use Reject to Punish a party for fielding a candidate who is offering a specific approportioning of the "cake", the difference between a mere Reject and Punish being that the latter is done with the intention of affecting the choice of "cake" approportioning of the other side of the game (i.e. the Party whose candidate is being rejected) that they offer on the next cycle.
Or in common language, in the US system it's a logical strategy to, on one election, reject the candidate of one's "natural" Party who is offering an unacceptable approportioning of the "cake", to incentivise that Party to offer a better candidate in the next electoral cycle - the decision tree in the system is a lot deeper than merelly the single unrevocable choice of a Trolley Problem.
Had most Democrat voters actually been following this logic for the last couple of decades, rather than treating each vote as an independent event from all other votes, the situation in the US would be totally different, IMHO, not least because somebody like Trump would be facing Democrat candidates who actually would be trying much harder to appeal to the common people (as they otherwise would be rejected and hence never win).
Further, the mob here claiming that "natural" Democrat voters who refrained from voting Democrat in this election are losing everytime Trump does one of his extreme measures are totally missing the picture - those people did not reject Democrat to get Trump, they Rejected Democrat to get a better Democrat next time around and a Trump presidency was the risk they were taking for it. That choice will only be a "loss" if the Democrats do not field a better candidate next time around (or if Trump somehow manages to make it so that there is no "next time around").
Nah, there's inherent dangers in humans eating humans, such as prions.
Best cut the rich into little pieces, feed them to pigs and then eat the pigs.
This is the Wine side of it, changing it to use that feature which is now in the Kernel.
Not quite.
For starters it didn't use to be a choice of "who would you rather see killed" - or in other words, nothing was forever lost if one side won instead of the other - and beyond that it has always been a cyclical choice, so it made sense for voters who felt insufficiently catered to, to punish a side on one cycle to try and get it to offer a better deal on the next cycle.
Whether that remains the case - i.e. will Trump make himself dictator for life - is the big question.
Cheap(-ish) supermarket chain with stores all over Europe, originally from German.
Judging by the currency plus the words and expressions used in it, the cartoon is from Britain, where there is a significant presence of that chain.
In Human Psychology it's a pretty well known phenomenon that those who loudly proclaim having certain virtues are the ones less likely to have such virtues.
If you go check the countries whose politicians loudly proclaim as having certain virtues (like being great Democracies or being a land of Freedom) that rule also seems to work pretty well.
It's still 5€ per month.
I just love the "totally not orchestrated" sudden rise of China-is-bad meme posts against the LLM company that just crushed the US-based behemoths by making a way better product.
That shit is not at all the kind of stuff that US-based-Tech-Bros-employed propaganda sockpuppets (or useful idiot nationalist fanboys) would put out to try and hamper a competitor form abroad with a better product.