it is basically an unsustainable structure. there's not much value to replacing one structure which you might think is unsustainable with something equally or less sustainable that also produces worse results anyway.

another issue is that it can dilute responsibility and someone will take more assertive control anyway which further reduces the quality of decision making. someone still has to enact and enforce the decisions, so whoever does the enacting has to obey and whoever does the enforcing has to enforce the right thing. it's easy to end up with a bunch of people influencing things for their own reasons which have nothing to do with maximizing the production of good results.

Unlike blog though, claw is camping on an existing word and it won't surprise me if people settle on some other word once a more popular, professional and security conscious variant exists.

I don't think operating through messaging services will be considered anything unique, since we've been doing that for over 30 years. The mobile dimension doesn't change this much, except for the difference between always connected and push notifications along with voice convenience being a given. Not using MCP was expected, because even in my personal experiments it was very natural to never adopt MCP. It's true that there are some qualities MCP has that can be useful, but it's extra work and friction that doesn't always pay off.

Total access + mobile messaging + real productivity is naturally addictive, and maybe it's logical that the lazy path to this is the first to become popularized, because the harder problems around it are simply ignored.

It is fun and feels new the first time you do it, but that aspect of it is not particularly new to computing. Back then of course, you'd interface with some flat text file database, directories, run commands or use raw sockets to scrape some website to get a result. APIs weren't a thing as much as you'd just try to replicate the queries to submit webpage forms.

You could have a music server in another room and send a message to pick the next song or open the CD drive on some machine halfway around the world. You could write new scripts that operate on a daily schedule and have them running on machines around the world. Many home computers were totally compromised back then too, so almost anything that was connected to IRC was a potential orchestration node.

Having an LLM make decisions about what to do with the machine is a natural evolution of that and not a hard thing to hack on if you have the right model, although it makes totally compromised the new default again.

2. Realize that Co-pilot is bad and needs to improve up to Microsoft's highest gold standards of trustworthiness.

3. Ditch Co-pilot branding inside the OS.

4. Make AI features private and offline by default unless the local hardware cannot run the specialized tiny model for that task, at which point it goes online for it. It might be slower, but if it does the thing, it's ok.

5. Allow companies and power users to provide their own local models that hook into these tasks, so they can host AI servers within the company and these AI tasks never reach outside of the company.

6. Make AI features more specific, targeted and useful instead of simply integrating it into the various functions and throwing it at users like "here, you figure out what to do with this thing, we don't know."

7. Don't expect people to want to chat with it in every app, just find a task that you know it succeeds at and expose that task rather than letting users figure out what it sucks at.

8. Don't make the AI integration APIs a case of increased surface area privacy and security risk that 3rd party system apps can hook into, to mass extract information out of every app on your system easily. Put limitations on it.

9. Add features to specify where AI can go and cannot go, just like the microphone. Folders, apps, online services. Even if it does use Co-pilot online, let users sculpt it.

10. Make it explicit and obvious when AI features are operating offline or online. If users have decades of understanding that Notepad is a private offline app, preserve that expectation as much as possible. Just because Outlook and OneNote are very online-oriented apps, it doesn't mean they want their local experience to be online in every way. If you force AI to go over all my cloud files, notes and e-mail without my permission, that is sociopathic behavior and I will ditch you, Microsoft.

Some day Co-pilot will probably be good. That isn't today. It's probably not this year or next year, but eventually. Until then, it needs to stay in a lane with freshly painted lines surrounded with sand barrels in case it wrecks.

It's not that I'm entirely opposed to some Microsoft AI feature existing in Windows, but manufacturing a user assumption that it is everywhere all the time is bad not just for Windows, but for society as a whole.

We've already seen how political and activist the public sphere became over the last decade, which reduces trust in the people who make software and services too. What do we do when Microsoft gets ideologically taken over and abuses its information access to people for political ends?

Show you can be trusted. When I put a little food bowl down for you, don't scratch me and we'll go from there.

Hopefully they can unwind these groups, because it's just pitting people against law enforcement who have no idea what they're up against. They don't seem to have a sense for when they have gone beyond protesting and have broken the law. There's this culture about them, like protesting means they are immune to law.

If this all ties back to funded groups who are then misinforming these people about how they should behave to increase the chance of escalatory events with the knowledge that it will increase the chance of these inflammatory political highlights to maximize rage, it won't surprise me.

If they want to follow ICE around and protest them, fine, but that's not what they're doing. These people are standing or parking their cars in front of their vehicles and blocking them. They'll also stand in front of the street exits to prevents their vehicles from leaving parking lots and so on. They refuse to move, so they have to be removed by force, because they are breaking the law. Some people are just trying to get arrested to waste ICE's time, and it's particularly bad because Minneapolis police won't help ICE.

A lot of video recordings don't even start until AFTER they've already broken the law, so all you end up seeing is ICE reacting.

Any time someone dies, there'll have to be an investigation to sort out what happened. Maybe the ICE officer made a mistake, but let the evidence be presented. Being that this is Minneapolis, hopefully they do a better job than the George Floyd case. I absolutely recommend you watch the entire Fall of Minneapolis documentary to get a better sense for what the country may be increasingly up against in multiple states: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPi3EigjFA

i think people know exactly what theyre up against: a lawless executive, many members of which have never had to work in places where they are held accountable to the constitution before.

its more important for the government to follow the constitution than for citizens to follow the law. if the government isnt following the law, there is no law

He wasn't killed for owning a gun or carrying a gun.

He wasn't killed for laying hands on the officer.

He wasn't killed for resisting arrest.

It was likely the entire combination of things that caused him to demonstrate he was a credible threat to their lives and reaching for an object. No matter what you think, Alex made a whole string of mistakes. The officer may have also made mistakes. With any luck investigation will reveal more details.

I'm not predisposed to assuming that Alex is innocent and the officer is guilty, because there is a lot of activist pressure to push exactly that perspective. I prefer to preserve the capacity to make up my own mind.

> With any luck investigation will reveal more details.

Kristi Noem said: "This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement." She even went so far as calling this an act of "domestic terrorism". At this point, do you seriously believe there will be a neutral investigation?

I don't know why he was being beaten on the ground, that seemed a little excessive. Not sure how many times he was shot, but generally if law enforcement ever makes the determination to shoot they do it to shoot to kill.

They knew he had 1 gun, so he could have 2 guns. The officers don't see the angle most of the camera angles see. They see the perspective they see, from themselves. That is the perspective that will matter by law. What situation were they in and what did they see when they made their decision?

You have the luxury of seeing a perspective the officer did not see, and the officer has the luxury of seeing a perspective you did not see.

People who are in favor of throwing the officer's life away without knowing all of the details are doing basically doing exactly what they're accusing the officer of in suggesting that he threw away this person's life without knowing all the information.

I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.

When the shots were fired, he was restrained by several agents and did not pose any immediate threat.

> Not sure how many times he was shot

It was ten shots, fired by two agents. That is a lot of shots.

Yes, the shooting itself was very likely an accident by grossly incompetent agents. (You can hear an agent shout the word "gun", which probably triggered the other agents to immediately start firing.)

However, it was the ICE agents who started the very situation that led to this tragedy: One agent violently pushed a women from behind. Why? Alex tried to help her and he immediately got peppersprayed in the face. Why? Then he was wrestled to the ground. Why? Then he was beaten to the head. Why?

All these actions are already outrageous in themselves. It is worrying how police brutality has been normalized in the US.

It is pretty rich to blame Alex when it was really the ICE agents who started this whole mess!

In fact, the videos are so damning that even Stephen Miller had to backpedal and admit that these agents "may not have been following proper protocol".

> I don't know what Kristi Noem is on about, but she's a political appointee and not an investigator.

What confidence do you have in DHS to lead an independent investigation of their own people?

So where do you see the potential threatening behavior? When the agent shoots Alex in the back, he is kneeling on the ground and being restrained by several agents. He has not acted in a threatening manner before the shooting nor did he physically attack the agents. The DHS report does not mention any threat either and they have already reviewed bodycam footage.

> Do not harass anyone who has a gun if you aren't willing to accept the risk that it could escalate into you losing your life.

As long as you're not attacking an officer/agent with a weapon, that risk should be very close to zero. Otherwise you're sending a very chill message to the general public.

> I do not have any particular positive or negative opinion about DHS

So you have no issues with the initial statements by Kristi Noem, Greg Bovino and Stephen Miller?

If you are laying hands on officers, leaning your weight against them, not obeying their commands, asking them to assault you (verbally, potentially), resisting arrest and struggling on the ground, that string of behavior should concern anyone. Imagine you AREN'T a police officer and someone is behaving that way to you. Of course you'll be on guard more than if it was just someone walking down the sidewalk with their bag of groceries.

Being on the ground does not mean you can't be a threat. As far as an officer might know, he could have a second gun holstered under his jacket that he could reach for. When someone is that uncooperative, it is very reasonable to throw away assumptions that they aren't a threat to you.

Whether what the officers experienced justifies escalating to lethal force I don't know, but that is what they'll have to find out.

> As long as you're not attacking an officer/agent with a weapon, that risk should be very close to zero. Otherwise you're sending a very chill message to the general public.

So, if an officer hasn't been shot in the head first, they shouldn't react? Guns can come out quick and kill a person almost instantly. There's very little time to react. That is why officers request people to listen to what they say and respond reasonably so you don't put them in a situation where they miscalculate your threat level. This is true even if you're not dealing with an officer. Someone doesn't have to be a threat and they don't even have to have a weapon, but if you have sufficiently justifiable reason to believe based on their behavior and actions that they are posing an imminent threat to you or others, you can often justify shooting them. You don't have to like that, but if you ever do need to defend yourself, you would be glad the laws are like that. Otherwise people who defend themselves end up becoming a victim twice where they survive an attack and then end up in prison just for legitimately defending themselves.

> So you have no issues with the initial statements by Kristi Noem, Greg Bovino and Stephen Miller?

I don't really know what any of those people were saying, but whether they are right or wrong doesn't justify everyone else being wrong by making false claims. If you want to be better, then don't try to be better by becoming the very people you disagree with.

If someone is fixated on the ground, they are not a threat. Alex was fixated by three agents, with four more agents watching from close distance.

> As far as an officer might know, he could have a second gun holstered under his jacket that he could reach for.

He wouldn't even have been able to reach for a gun as his hands were fixated at this point. That's the very point of fixating someone!

> Someone doesn't have to be a threat and they don't even have to have a weapon, but if you have sufficiently justifiable reason to believe based on their behavior and actions that they are posing an imminent threat to you or others, you can often justify shooting them.

How can you be a posing an imminent threat if you're not behaving in a threating way? At no point did Alex actually try to attack an agent or make any verbal threats against their life.

> I don't really know what any of those people were saying

Sorry, I don't believe you. There's no way you could have followed this case without knowing about their statements. You are acting in very bad faith here.

> but whether they are right or wrong doesn't justify everyone else being wrong by making false claims.

If several high officials of an agency are spreading obvious lies, it very much hurts the credibility of that agency.

It's not clear from the videos that they have full control of all of his limbs and it seems more like he's keeping his arms tightly tucked in to resist which leaves some range of motion. The moment that he first gets shot, he's not laying flat against the ground under full control of the agents.

You have way more confidence about the amount of control they have of him than the officers seemed to. There are videos of him being highly uncooperative and violent. In the video of the killing, he's also clearly being uncooperative. It would logically follow based on his past behavior and also the way the officers feel they need to react that he's continuing to be uncooperative on the ground.

> He wouldn't even have been able to reach for a gun as his hands were fixated at this point. That's the very point of fixating someone!

You're assuming 2 things here which an officer should know they cannot assume.

1. That he's fixated. You have high confidence of this, but even watching the video frame by frame this is not fully clear. You are leaping to a conclusion that it does not seem like the video evidence can guarantee.

2. That's the only gun or weapon he has on him. He could have a gun holstered under his jacket too, which would be within reach. After all, supposedly he reached for his phone, so that is a non-fixated range of motion and they could have believed it to be a gun, reasonably.

> Sorry, I don't believe you. There's no way you could have followed this case without knowing about their statements. You are acting in very bad faith here.

I mean, I don't follow this case. I don't even know who Stephen Miller is. What I do know is there are videos and I have seen the videos along with the things people are claiming are obvious based on the videos alone. I also know that even if public statements are made, those are not law and are generally not guaranteed facts of any sort. That's what court cases try to sort out. If public officials are saying things which turn out to be false, why would that surprise anyone? It doesn't mean they lied, but they are suffering from the same kinds of nonsense that a lot of people in these comments are, where they make assumptions that are not always supported by the evidence. When society gets stupid, courts are even more essential.

> If several high officials of an agency are spreading obvious lies, it very much hurts the credibility of that agency.

This is true. You are correct. I do not support spreading lies or disinformation or just jumping to statements which have a decent chance of being inaccurate or misinterpreted. They might have said something which has some support, but which is more political language than accurate legal language just like people are invoking the word murder oblivious to its meaning.

So yes if you become a public official, ideally you don't lie unless it's for some kind of essential national strategy, because public trust has value. Not sure what else you want to know about it.

At the very same time, just because you are not a public official does not mean you should say anything you want and make any claims you want about videos. It doesn't matter what everyone else is saying. A lot of people are talking with their hearts, which is nice and we need heart, but hearts are dumb. That's not controversial.

Most of us are contributing to public trust or deteriorating public trust by some measure in daily life and in every comment we write. Do you think your statements within the past week would make people have trust in their society, or would you say in reflection that your statements erode trust in society?

There are forces at work both from outside our country and within our country that are absolutely encouraging the reduction in trust. They will amplify any opportunity they can find to do so. There's a non-zero chance that Alex was an unwitting participant in that. You don't have to make the mistake by taking the same bait.

Officers aren't perfect and mistakes were probably made. You don't have to be a Harvard professor to know the video looks bad. That's not the point. Even if it looks bad, a lot of the claims people make about what happened and about what the video shows are not supported by what the video shows. Simple.

Well, they certainly felt they were under control, otherwise the four other agents wouldn't just stand around and watch.

The problem is that they send badly trained agents with guns to patrol cities where they meet people who are (rightfully) angry at what ICE is doing. That's a recipe for desaster.

It's no secret that ICE has significantly lowered the barrier to entry and shortened the training duration. In fact, there are reports of agents being deployed before they completed their training. Apparently, they don't do proper background checks either since some agents have been found to have a criminal record. Finally, ICE is intentionally recruiting in rightwing circles, using white nationalist language.

> I don't even know who Stephen Miller is.

I have a hard time believing this. How is this even possible for anyone with even a passing interest in US politics? If that is really true, that's quite an embarrassing admission.

> that's what court cases try to sort out.

Who says the case will go to court? What if they just close the investigation?

> They might have said something which has some support, but which is more political language than accurate legal language

Why speak in the subjunctive? Why don't you look up what they said? How can you assess the credibility of an agency when you don't seem to know much about it?

> or would you say in reflection that your statements erode trust in society?

I see no reason for saying that. But if there's someone who is eroding trust then it's the Trump administration with their egregrious lies, their contempt for the rule of law and their staggering corruption.

I think ICE is trained to do the job that they're trained to do, but I don't expect riot control and protest management is part of that standard job training. That is part of why it is so dangerous and stupid for local government to prevent the local law enforcement that does have that training from helping keep these environments safe.

The local policies are getting people killed. The local posture of hostility and delegitimization of ICE creates a dangerous environment and it is divorced from reality.

As far as I can tell by this tracker map, Minneapolis is the only place in the entire country where protesters have been shot and killed. Filter it to fatal shootings: https://www.thetrace.org/2025/12/immigration-ice-shootings-g...

> I have a hard time believing this. How is this even possible for anyone with even a passing interest in US politics? If that is really true, that's quite an embarrassing admission.

I don't know that I'd say it's embarrassing. Don't really know who he is and I expect most people don't know who he is, because I consume far more information than most people. It's also not as critical, because people are making claims about what the videos show that are not supported by the videos themselves. As far as I know, Stephen Miller was not present during any of these events. He wasn't shot. He wasn't shooting. He wasn't protesting. He wasn't in these videos. Forcing some kind of arbitrary need to know other people to delegitimize thoughts seems very much like an emotional argument especially since no strong reasoning has been provided for why knowing him is critically relevant for making an observation within the videos.

> Who says the case will go to court? What if they just close the investigation?

It's complicated, because there has been evidence of Minneapolis court corruption. In the Renee Good case I think the FBI and the state of Minnesota were going to work together in that situation and that's how it would have worked, but the local corruption was too hard to swallow and they backed out. You cannot have an impartial investigation in the place that handled the disastrously corrupt case around George Floyd.

It looks like they're going to do something similar here even though I think people said this was CBP rather than ICE. Here again the FBI was already involved, but they're now taking the lead on it in cooperation with the DOJ: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alex-pretti-shooting-fbi-invest...

> Why speak in the subjunctive? Why don't you look up what they said? How can you assess the credibility of an agency when you don't seem to know much about it?

I have no idea what a subjunctive is. It doesn't help when you try to misdirecting attention to some random guy who wasn't there and various public statements. None of it matters. If people make a claim about a video that isn't supported by the video, they have to provide other evidence that does support their claim. People here were just making absolute statements about what the video definitely shows as if the video by itself is the entire proof of their claim. All I'm saying is that they're incorrect. It will be true 100 years from now, because information has limits.

> I see no reason for saying that. But if there's someone who is eroding trust then it's the Trump administration with their egregrious lies, their contempt for the rule of law and their staggering corruption.

You could make a fair argument that he is employing a strategy that makes it easy for activists and politicians to attack him which stokes anger. A lot of what he does is rhetorical devices and monument building to achieve deals. It wouldn't be so messy if he limited dealmaking to regular deals, but he makes everything a deal. Even Trump himself is a deal, so he builds himself up as a monument the same way he does every other thing.

He believes monumental deals are easier to get people to pay attention to and get investment in, so they are in many ways easier to do than small deals. He inflates everything to get things done, whether that's walls or greenland deals. The problem is, it actually works. He's not always right and his strategy doesn't always pay off, but it pays off often enough that there's no reason for him to stop.

Some people go into a maniacal moral panic over it and emotion oriented news and comedy media abuses it, which ends up actually looking way more dishonest than they even paint Trump. These terrible late night shows and opinion news networks are so lost in their bubbles that they are far worse for the country than Trump could ever be. You could argue that it's Trump's fault that these shows got so bad, but in a way I've always gotten used to politicians being wrong or flexible with their words, but I still had the expectation that the news would be straight with me about what events were occurring on a day. That illusion was destroyed.

I don't have to like Trump or align with his morals to appreciate that many of the things this administration is getting done are basic fundamental national interests that a lot of the normal establishment politicians have been trying to achieve for decades without luck. He's unconventional, but the threats we face have gotten so large that we no longer have the luxury of doing things slowly.

The number of ICE agents has more than doubled in one year (from 10,000 to 22,000). These new agents have not received proper training and many have been recruited from problematic backgrounds.

> but I don't expect riot control and protest management is part of that standard job training.

Well, because they are not meant to be patrolling US cities in the first place. Currently, there are 3000 ICE agents in Minneapolis alone. That is 5 times more people than Minneapolis own police roce! 13% of all ICE agents are currently deployed in a city that makes up 0.15% of the US population. The purpose is very clearly to terrorize a democratic city that resists ICE unlawful and inhumane practices.

> In the Renee Good case I think the FBI and the state of Minnesota were going to work together in that situation and that's how it would have worked, but the local corruption was too hard to swallow and they backed out.

That's certainly not what happened. Stop kidding yourself.

> Don't really know who he is and I expect most people don't know who he is, because I consume far more information than most people.

If that is true, you're willfully uninformed. How can you even make any qualified statements about the Trump administration without knowing one of its most influential people? How can you assess the credibility of the DHS without knowing the (very prominent) people who are in charge?

> which ends up actually looking way more dishonest than they even paint Trump.

Don't worry, the Trump administration is doing all the heavy lifting here. We've reached a point where reality has surpassed the wildest satire. We can listen to Trumps speeches over here in Europe. We see what the administration is doing. There are no excuses!

Your seemingly levelheaded words are just thinly veiled complicity with the MAGA movement. In your last paragraph you really let the mask slip.

I don't know if their training is sufficient or not for the job they're actually tasked with, but it seems to not be resulting in dead people in every other city.

> Currently, there are 3000 ICE agents in Minneapolis alone. That is 5 times more people than Minneapolis own police roce! 13% of all ICE agents are currently deployed in a city that makes up 0.15% of the US population. The purpose is very clearly to terrorize a democratic city that resists ICE unlawful and inhumane practices.

Well, if the local police don't assist, you're going to end up with more ICE than other cities since some of them have to try to do the job of the police too. Sanctuary cities may also have a higher proportion of the people ICE is going after, so it would logically follow that more ICE resources may be needed there which could inflate the numbers twice.

> That's certainly not what happened. Stop kidding yourself.

Well, I did look into the George Floyd case. It was not a fair trial. If you care about fair trials, and you do like the word embarrassment, that trial was an embarrassment to all US courts. These Minneapolis protester deaths are the closest things we've seen since then as far as I know in terms of them being promoted in the public for manufacturing outrage for political gain. It's like activist organizations know Minneapolis is a particularly good place to farm this so they push harder there. It was so easy for them to incite riots and city burning, that's the kind of imagery you like to get pushed national if you're a resistance movement.

> If that is true, you're willfully uninformed. How can you even make any qualified statements about the Trump administration without knowing one of its most influential people?

I probably know of them, but not by name then if they're that influential. You're still missing the point that they aren't relevant here. Whoever they are and whatever DHS does, there are laws that exist that apply. There are officers and protesters in a video. An event took place. You don't need to know the current temperature on Mars in order to estimate whether a claim about the event is supported solely by the video evidence. You know this, because you're pushing back against people making claims about what's in the videos too. You're getting lost in the weeds here.

It's like saying, "look at Stephen Miller, that's how you know the video is proof it was murder!" or "look at Stephen Miller, that's how you can tell the officers had him fully and confidently restrained!". It is not logically supportable.

> How can you assess the credibility of the DHS without knowing the (very prominent) people who are in charge?

The George Floyd case was so bad, that what I'm saying is no matter what you think of DHS, they can surely do a better job than that. It's one of the worst cases of the execution of justice I can recall in my lifetime. Courts do sometimes get things wrong, but that was another level.

At the same time, I can understand the concern that if these protesters are fervently and emotionally anti-Trump then get killed by DHS, serious activists may feel uncomfortable that DHS is part of the executive branch which Trump has legal authority over. There have also been lies spread about complete legal immunity of Trump and him being a king which aren't reality, but if it contributes to distrust in the executive branch handling the case that's probably a legitimate issue of public trust. That element existed somewhat in the George Floyd case, because the local police department was part of the executive branch and people didn't trust the police, so the judicial branch took it. That is fine, except for how the courts handled it.

Either way, DOJ is involved with the case now.

> Don't worry, the Trump administration is doing all the heavy lifting here. We've reached a point where reality has surpassed the wildest satire. We can listen to Trumps speeches over here in Europe. We see what the administration is doing. There are no excuses!

Being European doesn't mean you can't have an opinion and it's not unique to you alone that you don't understand Trump, because most people don't understand Trump. I highly doubt you see what the administration is doing, because it's very rare.

There's the law, there's what they say, there's the action, there's the goal, there's what was achieved and then there's what achieving that actually produces as an effect. Most of what is occurring aligns with vanilla strategic national interests of the US that goes back many administrations. Maybe the surface level optics and culture are different, but make no mistake that this is just the US being the US.

In short, if you think it's not about China, its probably about China. If you think it's about Greenland, it's about China. If you think it's about ending NATO, it's about China. If you think it's about immigration, it's about China.

If you don't know what China has been doing and why they've been doing it. If you don't know the things Xi Jinping has been saying. If you don't know what China has been doing in the South China Sea, or in propping up dictatorships, etc. I highly recommend, whatever your political feelings are, you dig deep and spend a couple thousand hours just consuming information about China and the history of communism.

Almost everything we're doing in the US and around the world right now can be explained from that concern as an organizing principle. Trump is just an instrument of that.

Stop pretending ICE and the whole administration is acting lawfully. Their disregard and contempt for the law is all too obvious. ICE is patrolling cities, breaking into homes without warrants, kidnapping people without due process and throwing them into internment camps with horrible inhumane conditions. People are rightfully angry for being terrorized.

I did not mention Stephen Miller because he is relevant for the shooting, but for the assessment of the DHS as a whole. If you have actual confidence in the DHS to lead an independent investigation of its own agents, considering the people in charge, you must be very naive.

Your country has taken a sudden and deep authoritarian turn and is right on its way into fascism. We've seen this in our own countries 90-100 years ago, it looks and sounds all too familiar. The past few months have already shown that the democratic system is in fact very fragile and can fall apart faster than people would have thought. Better wake up until it's too late!

Fascists and communists also like to control language. It was Marxist movements trying to control language here and cancelling people, with widespread pressure campaigns to divide communities. Trump's unfiltered rhetoric drove them crazy and created space in the public sphere for people to speak their mind even if it wasn't politically correct. So Trump has also helped freedom of speech.

There are several other issues like that which are being addressed. It's not that everyone thinks Trump is a beacon of morality and sanity, it's just that he's getting things done that are legitimately helping address the country's challenges at the moment in time we're in.

Putting pressure on Venezuela and Iran with CIA, Mossad and the military has probably significantly delayed China's move on Taiwan. It may have even contributed to Xi Jinping's timing in arresting the last of his military high command which is unprecedented.

We'll be ok here in the US and our behavior today is in line with some pretty traditional national strategy. We were in luxury mode for too long, so part of what is happening is we're playing catch-up, which tends to involve some rudeness and chaos.

"There is no indication", yeah so about misinformation...

That's not how I understand it.

> Supposedly one of the videos shows him reaching for some black object. I don't know.

It would be good if you'd watch this review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIOwTMsDSZA

It's relevant because you said you didn't know. The review provides information that helps you to know.

> These activists appear to have followed the federal law enforcement.

Nothing illegal about that at all.

> That highly suggests they knew exactly who they were. ... No reasonable court is likely to determine that they were unaware who they were dealing with.

That's not relevant.

What's your point? No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists.

> The officers didn't show up unannounced to the front door of someone who happened to be an activist.

So?

> Nothing illegal about that at all.

The first thing I said is that it's not illegal.

> No reasonable court would find that the activists did anything wrong, while they certainly would find two federal employees ("officers") are culpable in the murder of one of those activists.

The videos don't show all the events leading up to the moment he was shot, but multiple federal laws were broken just in the videos we do have. Murder has a specific definition and nothing here suggests murder.

I double checked, and you are right.

The one I meant to link is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjN73-gn90Q

- One of the first things he states is that this is irrefutably cold blooded murder. That is absolutely legally and logically false. It could be murder, but that would require information that is not present in any of these videos, because murder has a very specific definition. Look up the definition. If this guy was law enforcement he should know the difference.

- He then claims that Alex is being pushed back to the curb and that Alex is complying, when you can see in the video that Alex seems to lean his weight into the officer in resistance.

- Alex physically lays hands on the officer which is a bad idea, but this guy never mentions that. If he was LEO, it is very careless to overlook this observation.

- Alex is wearing glasses and yet this guy never mentions this when claiming Alex is blinded by this spray. The activists look prepared to get sprayed and are wearing glasses and goggles. You can see this more clearly in better footage here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/minute-minute-timeline-fatal...

- He's talking about how the weapon is removed, but not talking about how that doesn't mean there is no longer a weapon in the situation. If you have 1 gun, you can have 2 guns. He claims he is completely unarmed, but the officers cannot know if that is true in that moment. They don't have the benefit of hindsight.

- He claims he points the gun at the back of his head and shoots, but that is not what the video shows. Whether that is what later evidence shows is another matter, but that is not what is clear in this video.

- He complains that Youtube is going to demonetize this. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't want to enable monetization on a video about someone dying like this, because it just stinks of profiting from someone's death. If he left monetization on, that lowers my opinion of him, but that's just an aside and not relevant.

If you want my honest opinion of this guy's analysis, it is that he either does not have the military and law enforcement qualifications that he says he does, or he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts, or he is simply being very loose with language and biased towards an interpretation. Either way, this is not an objective analysis. I can't speak for the rest of the videos on his channel and nobody is perfect, but at least on this topic in this specific video the number of logical errors he makes is staggering.

He was pepper sprayed and on the ground surrounded by 6 agents when he was killed. At the time when an agent said that he had a gun (this was after his gun was removed), he was physically pinned with his arms restrained. He wasn't 'reaching for an object'. He was carrying his phone in his hand before he was restrained and shot a dozen times.

The only investigation being done is by the DHS, who is blocking all other state level investigations. The same DHS who lied about easy disproven things that were recorded and destroy evidences.

What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind?

I don't know what you're referring to about DHS lying about disproven things and destroying evidence. If you can give me links I'll look into it.

> What are you waiting or expecting from a investigation to make up your mind?

I've seen enough video to know that it's not impossible the officer reacted within the spirit of the law. To get a sense for that requires testimony from the officer that fired the shot. Please watch court cases some time and you'll get a sense for how the application of these kinds of laws work. I'm not a lawyer, but if you ever have to defend yourself against someone you'll be thankful the laws work the way that they do.

We have a justice system for a reason. It doesn't always work, but it lays out a process for evaluating evidence. Why do we do it that way? We do it that way, because it is not that uncommon that perceptions, witnesses, videos and many other things can be deceptive. They can make you believe things which are not true. So you try to establish all of the relevant facts as they apply to the law. Not based on how you feel, but based on the law.

It actually hurts some of the witnesses that are obviously activists, because it means they aren't unbiased objective observers, but are predisposed to a perspective and have a possible agenda in mind which risks reducing the quality of their testimony. A law enforcement officer that thinks he might be found guilty also risks their testimony being weak. The video quality is also often bad and there are people obstructing important details at times. All of those things have to be considered.

Of course when you are emotionally invested, you might want them to just rush to what you obviously see. Again, you will be very thankful that the justice system generally doesn't rush to those conclusions so readily if you ever have to defend yourself in court when you know you're innocent.

Why is it so important to you that other people see what you see before any investigation is complete? Look at how courts handle video evidence to gain some perspective on why your thinking which seems to rely so heavily on video evidence alone is simply flawed.

Don't trust your eyes. That is the final and most essential command.

What you are saying is, trust your eyes alone! Pay no attention to what you can touch or what people involved might have to say. That is the final and most essential command.

It goes both ways. With your eyes that you trust so much, hopefully you can see at least that.

There is no version of this where nobody made mistakes and mistakes don't mean someone should have to die, but laws exist for a reason and you don't know what each person was experiencing simply after watching a video.

Video evidence does not generally have infinite credibility in court, because it is often a limited perspective on the reality of what happened. The cameras can only catch sound waves and photons, but almost the majority of everything important that occurred is invisible. If the audio had much value, all the whistles ruined some of that. It may even turn out that the whistles contributed to this death, because it weakened officer communication. Maybe there could be a justification for involuntary manslaughter by people blowing whistles if they were blowing them precisely with intentions like that. I don't know.

We just don't know and claiming these videos show everything you will ever need to know is simply logically false.

You weren't in Alex's head. You weren't in the officer's head. All you know is what you think you know, but aren't even sure you can know it. That is what investigation is for.

You keep using words like murder despite there not being sufficient evidence for that.

Alex broke many federal laws, spit at officers, laid hands on them, attacked their vehicles and broke their tail lights while they were in the vehicles and so on.

I do not know what kind of person Alex was when he was being civil in his own life, but in his most public representation he has shown himself to be an unhinged criminal. Maybe he thought his criminal behavior was justified, but that is a separate matter. It also doesn't mean he deserved to die.

Acting that way though, makes it a lot easier to make the case that officers believed he was a credible threat to their lives in a court case. It doesn't even only have to be valid in court, it could have legitimately been true in that recorded moment that in all of the chaos and with this guy's crazy behavior, they really believed he might have had another weapon and would have used it.

Don't get manipulated into using words like complicit to try to divide the country.

At least, while decrying civil disobedience, you differ from the administration in one important aspect: You think there should be accountability for police shootings. That's different than the ICE leader, the DHS leader, the FBI director and the Vice President.

Law enforcement face a lot of violent resistance, so it can be very reasonable for them to see an uncooperative person as a serious threat to their life. If they kill someone, because they believe them to be a lethal threat even if that was not the reality, their perspective absolutely matters to the outcome.

Civil disobedience is basically understood to be breaking the law in a civil manner. What I'm seeing in a lot of videos is not civil disobedience. One expected attribute of civil disobedience is non-evasion, but resisting arrest is essentially attempted evasion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

Again, I don't think anyone should have died, but to my eye I can tell the people who are unreasonable and lacking in critical thinking, because they have already prejudged and sentenced people as if they've already sat through the entire court case and had their own hands on the gavel as it went down.

Social media, videos, news, activists and more are incentivized to rile people up. Let it be investigated.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention at all lately, but saying "let's investigate" with the current administration is farcical at best.

At this point they need to split the country so people who want to live differently can do so. Maybe that would prevent needing to bomb the Iranian government into oblivion.

That would be fine if it only effected that first layer, of a basic library and a basic app, but it becomes multiple layers of this kind of habit that then ends up in multiple layers of software used by many people.

Not sure that I would go so far as to suggest these kinds of languages with runaway dependency cultures shouldn't exist, but I will go so far as to say any languages that don't already have that culture need to be preserved with respect like uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. You aren't just managing a language, you are also managing process and mind. Some seemingly inefficient and seemingly less powerful processes and ways of thinking have value that isn't always immediately obvious to people.

In addition to that, since we're on the car angle, Chinese EVs are basically just privacy nightmares. I mean, all cars are at this point, but that's why we definitely don't want Chinese ones coming across the Canadian border and ending up all over the place.

In the end there are in fact legitimate national security concerns that the tariffs address and Canada risks weakening those. So, that is the actual answer to why.

My perspective on the China risk differs some, though. China wouldn't benefit much from attacking TSMC. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that they might. At best they'd like to have it in-tact if they do take Taiwan, but there have been talks about machines being rigged to explode to deny them from China, or the US striking them in that scenario.

If neither we nor China get to work with TSMC, then we're still ahead in relative terms. If China did attack TSMC, they set the norm that the fabs (including their own) are now a fair target which would be a larger disadvantage for them than it would be for us since China's physical power projection remains pretty regional outside of Chinese nationals abroad engaging in sabotage.

That is one of their biggest weaknesses. Yes they have a lot of manufacturing capacity and a large population with many talented people, but in a way we have lent them the power to scale up to see what they'll do. We are already putting some pressure on that scale now that they've shown who they are, but if it came to war it would be very doable to start reversing their scale and their capacity to do the same to us would degrade as ours increases.

Even if all the AI in the world was destroyed, that's how it would play out. The problem is that Taiwan remains in close proximity to China so similar to Ukraine it would likely come down to how long they're willing to throw everything at it.

If Russia and China wanted to be powerful, it's just idiocy to show the existing superpower that you cannot be trusted with the power you have. If they fancy a merit based society, they forgot that merit isn't omnipotence and you still need the right ideas to be at the top to accompany the merit. For China maybe they need AI for that alone, but western societies at least have ways for the right ideas to make it to the top without the strict need of AI.

Big tech manufacturers are treating consumers like crap by selling chips and memory to over-invested start-up companies that will go bankrupt, as these products will not be profitable due to the high costs (the technology that would make them profitable does not exist and has not even been conceived), in addition to the low long-term quality of what they offer.

The thing is, right now, billions of consumers around the world see how those big tech manufacturers are not serving them the pieces they need, and that such techs will not do in the near future with fair prices (prices abuse escalation, the consumers lost their strength).

Right now, if China takes Taiwan, 2026-2027, even if they lose the fabs, the billions of consumers in this planet will see this as a real f** you big techs, f** you overinvested startups hoarding, go go China, as we realize that we are third category citizens in this "first the riches" spiral, and will be no much difference of what is going on now.

If China takes his media news cards right, and makes know the consumers this is a revolution, and combine it with one of the numerous Taiwan's corruption scandals, I bet they will not find the opposition from citizens around the world that they would find in a different period of time.

Besides, if you want to optimize for pure consumerism, you can just look at how roman slavery worked out for roman freemen in the late republic.

Good try. We are talking about a window of X years were the average normal consumer, average people, will not be able to buy tech, and should not buy tech, due the prices will put, has already put, average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology, anything with a memory or disk or CPU ( too expensive, this is an abuse, it is better to wait given the current terms).

This pause were the tech supply is not destined to the average consumer (who is being abused due this) is the perfect window for China to take Taiwan if they plan the strategy well.

And it is not needed even to predict, Chinese government just need to follow/observe the prices and discomfort, and if the pattern follows, it is the moment. The average consumer, the people, even will aim them.

None of this is "unaffordable" as you say as it is just a month's worth of savings.

Average low-end technology at prices of extra mega top tier technology.

You are saying people will buy, and smile without resistance saving months to pay those abusive prices for low-end tech, even knowing this is because four or five companies are hoarding the market. Take for sure people is really tired/sick of this, check the forums.

China, are you reading this? You should study this along the months. Then you can make your own conclusions.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcae6aiV1vs

Imagine if China has a foothold in every industry. Sure the US can tariff itself but the rest of the world is not really competing in most of those industries and so consumers will be able to see that they dont have to settle for overpriced junk anymore. What will American/European or even other sian companies do? In America most companies have financialized so much that the underlying product that made the company famous have rotten in quality.

I recently was blown away Laifen's P3 Pro electric razor. I always thought I would be a loyal Panasonic customer for life (since I had family work for the company) but here comes this Chinese company from nowhere and they produce such an amazing device at an amazing price. I never thought having a CNC milled pocket razor using some sort of tiny linear motor would be something I would want but now I can't see life without it.

They are doing it to every industry. I always accepted things like 3D printers were gone thanks to Bambu but I now have to consider every industry at risk.

It will tank the markets because people will assume a depression-level event and WW3. But Trump isn't like other presidents. He'll make a deal with China. And finally, the China/Taiwan cloud over the markets will go away for good and countries can start trading freely with China again. Markets will severely over react initially.

I can see TSMC benefiting hugely from this long term, as long as the reunification is peaceful no damage to any TSMC fabs or people. The reason is because TSMC will most likely be forced to open up to both Chinese and US customers. Right now, they can't serve the world's second largest market. Nearly half of their customers can't use them.

I'm making these assumptions:

1. China won't use force (or very very little) to take Taiwan.

2. There won't be WW3 that will come out of this. You'd have to be an idiot to think that Americans will die defending Taiwan or that Europe will send troops when China is quickly becoming their biggest trading partners and US has shown they're susceptible to annexing Greenland.

3. China will operate 1 country 2 system long term with Taiwan.

2. If Russia, North Korea, South Korea and Japan join in there is a lot of potential for it to scale up. Whether it would become an all out horrific war like a World War or stay a little bottled up, it does risk becoming a huge conflict. Many Americans love South Korea and Japan, though they're less informed about Taiwanese. If South Koreans and Japanese are dying, we will be involved in one way or another.

3. No it won't. Look at what happened with Hong Kong, it broke its promise, just like the CCP breaks many of its promises. Not sure how bad they are compared to Russia in that regard, but it's pretty bad. Besides, if China wants to expand the way it seems like they want to, they need to take Taiwan so I doubt they would slow roll it.

3. Hong Kong is still a different system last I visited (2024).

Let's set X = oil. Oil is a critical resource that is huge for transportation. If you are the one that controls it and people need it from you, that gives you leverage to encourage them to do what you want. An authoritarian country that engages in mass killings and torture of its own people could get away with a lot and even abuse other countries if it has enough oil.

You can apply this to nukes and many other things. Like maybe you defend an ally. Why defend an ally? Having them makes you stronger. Why do you need to be stronger? To defend the way of life you believe in.

If the US truly does something horrifically wrong, we're free to report on it in our own country. Even with the Vietnam war, we reported that we were explicitly killing women, children and babies as a result of some realities on the ground. Just a few years ago the Biden administration drone striked a vehicle of school children on accident and admitted it. We waterboarded known terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. For a country the size and influence of the US operating all over the world, you can find many examples of problematic activity. Sometimes the "why" we did it helps it make sense, and sometimes it doesn't.

One case where the why made sense, is when we nuked Japan. Nukes weren't the most deadly option and it was done during horrific times that even seeing film of the war you cannot fathom. Other methods were already killing far more people. Nukes were devastating in a different way, but the benefit of using them was to try to stop the war to save millions more. Back then, precision strikes were barely a thing so collateral damage was an accepted and understood aspect of war.

Now we have enough sensors in space, on ships, in the air and so on that we can be more precise. We're much better at avoiding casualties like that now, but our adversaries also know that we try to avoid them so they use innocent people as human shields. Now, many of our strikes are so precise that they're just labeled as assassinations now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_the_...

Russia and the CCP can't even admit the things they've done which have killed millions in their own countries not to mention other countries, so they can't improve and their populations can't press them to be better. Instead they shame, attack, arrest, assassinate and execute their own people to try to justify to their countries that their tough authoritarian control is necessary.

In Ukraine, Russia has been attacking apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, power plants, police stations and so on intentionally and repeatedly. Iran just mowed down thousands of protestors. I don't doubt that some were armed or that there was violence, but it looks very much like they went far beyond any justified level of force. Venezuela was arresting and torturing people with opposing political opinions, sometimes gunning them down openly in the streets.

Much of our popular media still encourages kindness and the preservation of life.

People talk about inequality in the US and injustice, but poor people in the US are better off than most other countries. Most of the poor people I know still manage to have large TVs, hot showers and eat Taco Bell, which is not the kind of absolute poverty you see in countries where people are eating out of the trash and washing their butts with water trapped in potholes in the road. Many people DO get free healthcare and actual real healthcare costs are often much lower than the numbers people publicize since those are pre-negotiated. There are also free food pantries all over the country. There are places that offer free clothing and much more. People donate stuff all the time. Our philanthropists have invested all around the world to stop diseases and improve access to education.

Our military members regularly risk their lives in dangerous situations to fight back against criminal pirates, actual terrorists (not just mislabeled ones), violent dictatorships and so on.

Whenever we are in a country and doing business, people's lives are generally better. Venezuelans were better off when the US was there. Under Chavez and Maduro, who are supposed to be directing resources to the people, they have been worse off. This is just one interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cylfhA8pNgY

There is a basic logic usually at play. Are we killing someone who has better morals than we do? How would we compare the morals? Most of the people the US goes after have clearly worse morals and a history of evidence that backs it up. We're not out in the world killing nice Thai people or rounding up Canadians to put them in mass graves. It's generally people who already don't respect the lives of others. Look at Singapore. It's a dictatorship, yet we're not over there wrecking them.

You should start asking yourself if the US is so bad and a giant evil empire, why are we not in the places that we're not in? What are the people inside the US actually like? You know, it is the people who end up becoming the government. So who are the people? Almost universally in my entire life in the US, my encounters with people have been kind and positive. Not just surface level, but giving and considerate. Someone who didn't even see me and doesn't know me bought me breakfast recently just to be nice.

Social media and emotional entertainment comedy news programs are not reality. There is an information war happening against the US, because it is a vector they have a numbers advantage on and you can make a lot of noise there without needing as much money. There are bots ALL over youtube now spreading lies in comments. It's tricky to figure out exactly how to handle it without censoring real organic opinions. The CCP seems to identify inconvenient news and spread the link to a network of people that bombard a story. There's no way the algorithm would be recommending these stories to an overwhelming majority of people who have these negative opinions and you wouldn't get a giant pile of these comments within the first 50 minutes of it being posted either.

Just have to make up your own mind, but first you have to get good at making up your own mind. If you don't, someone else will make up your mind for you.

Um, based on the HK experience I would revise this to "2 countries 1 system".

If people generally understand that we're intervening in a China/Taiwan conflict for the right reasons, and China attacks us at home it would only accelerate the west. If you look at Vietnam, the logic around that war fell apart and it no longer made sense to continue it. The people were right to push back. Iraq and Afghanistan went on for a long time without much fuss.

Some kind of conflict in South East Asia would likely largely be a naval and resource war, with many casualties being naval rather than mainland. Most losses on both sides will probably be drones, AI or not.

If it came down to attrition, it would maybe be AI machine attrition or drone/missile attrition which is in a way a resource war which the US could win even without TSMC, but from where we're standing today it would take more ramping up which is a process that has already started.

If OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc were attacked by China in a more critical way, it would have to be for some major short term advantage that is capitalized on immediately, because long-term it would be a losing strategy by itself. China has systems to disrupt as well, so if they let loose on cyber then the US has options too.

Either way, don't conflate general economic preference around an election for whether people would tolerate being unable to access Gmail or order from Amazon like they would all rush to riot in the streets. I think that misreads the situation.

>If it came down to attrition, it would maybe be AI machine attrition or drone/missile attrition which is in a way a resource war which the US could win even without TSMC, but from where we're standing today it would take more ramping up which is a process that has already started.

I'd argue China adding 1/3 of the entire US electricity capacity in a single year and increasing along with their extreme battery overcapacity makes AI and drone production something that China will win. Like I said it remains to be seen how will the US military will hold up because they do have the Arizona TSMC facility running and that could be a buffer to help the US hold on but people will still feel the pain in massive inflation in all areas and thats where peoples selfishness will rear its ugly head. Why care about Taiwan when the population could just elect someone that will negotiate a short term win for the US (at the expense of a long term loss).

>If OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc were attacked by China in a more critical way, it would have to be for some major short term advantage that is capitalized on immediately, because long-term it would be a losing strategy by itself. China has systems to disrupt as well, so if they let loose on cyber then the US has options too.

So I have been in meetings for things like Franklin Project (https://defconfranklin.com/) which are among many great initiatives the people are doing to help the US prepare for an initial attack where China disrupts all the little mom and pop orgs scattered across the US in a first strike to disorient the homeland. Is it enough? I dont know, we will have to wait and see. I dont know what China is doing to prepare for a response. It seems like their AI initiatives are a pragmatic move (use low cost Ai implemented at various layers across the stack) I do worry that in the last few years its been revealed how little so many Americans take education and critical thinking seriously and that will directly translate into sloppy IT infrastructure around the country.

>Either way, don't conflate general economic preference around an election for whether people would tolerate being unable to access Gmail or order from Amazon like they would all rush to riot in the streets. I think that misreads the situation.

I think you misread my point: Americans would make themselves heard by electing someone who will deliver a quick relief for them at the cost of long term loss.

Another note most of the world understands US's strategy for this type of disruptions used as a weapon, if they can cause civil unrest, the US can use this against the government and it will into the advantage of the US. I would like to note this is not a country of easy convincing, The majority of the seating members of the CCP are deeply interested in their society's interests, then globally second. You have 1.4b people this is not an easy management to handle.

In my eyes best to not compete and work together. There are hard obstacles ahead that are going to need all of our efforts collectively, in Hines-sight this is childish and a waste of time, literally. We made it this far, all of the great achievements and innovations that with out a doubt all have collectively contributed as humans. Climate changes, Populations management, Biological threats, viral threats, pandemic management, genome advancements etc...

Some of the moves that leaders make are simply moving us back in time and when one does something unfavorable to the other it sets the tone for how future engagements and decisions are made, whether silly or not. Indeed no leader is innocent in their decisions, but my point still stands.

Can you give some examples of why you think this? I really can't imagine how this would be true.

Best examples would be in last 25 years when they've had mass affluence.

Pain tolerance might be the wrong term. Pain tolerance implies speaks to something intrinsic about a population, while really what we're looking at is how much discomfort a population can endure before it really agitates for policy/political change, and so it's much about how a population feels, as the tools available to the government to control, manage, deflect and address the pain/discomfort.

I do think that the US population is able to bear incredible levels of pain if it's packaged a certain way. Examples:

-20 year Global War on Terror which cost $6T+

-Healthcare costs which far outstrip other western nations, mostly paid for out of pocket, and which increase every year

-Opioid Crisis which killed more people than all our 20th century wars combined

-Lack of workplace protections, time off, etc which our peer nations enjoy

The Chinese have not dealt with any of these things, so yeah, they have more available capacity to manage new social disruptions. That said, Americans love war, so we could probably add another war without disrupting things too badly.

The availability to good healthcare for many conditions in China is quite subpar compared to the US. They don't have many physicians. Their healthcare outcomes in most things are worse than those for Americans. Good example is their lung cancer morality rates.

Of course both these things are expected for a much poorer country.

Do you really think the Chinese have not dealt with bad workplace conditions? The US population may be jealous of some of their neighbors but they have significantly better working conditions than most Chinese.

From 996 from Alibaba to the swaths of cheap, manual labor used for outsourcing by, among others, the US.

The high population with oversupply of STEP means everything is more cutthroat there. They have 25% youth unemployment. 996 produces lots of problems but also higher pain threshold. When a new idea comes along they move at lightning speed.

Oversupply of companies in every industry. For example: China mandated companies start producing EVs. Next thing you know there are 100+ car companies in China. All creating jobs that local areas depends on. Now the EV incentives are gone and it has led to extreme price war and everyone fighting for survival in the jungle. What do you think those surviving companies will be like once the weak have been killed off? Imagine them coming after American companies who are fat and bloated and may not know whats coming for them (the employees certainly don't).

This ability to push harder than anyone else is already paying dividends. In 2024, China added 429 GW of new power capacity, more than one-third of the entire US grid. Thats many more factories producing weapons, data centers crunching AI, and lower energy costs enabling more new opportunities.

Now take these people and put them on a war footing? They will out manufacture, out speed and with the amount of STEM they have possibly out wit the US.