Toyota, along with most Japanese car manufacturers, are betting big on hydrogen cars. They still invest in electric cars, but their main focus is on hydrogen-fueled cars. So I doubt they'll be buying TSLA.
Here is a good article on the direction of the japanese car industry.
So now Trump has both assange and manning in prison?
Funny how the entire media has been soft on Trump on this matter. You would think "journalists" at CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo, etc would be going crazy over Trump's attack on free press, leakers and people holding power to account. Who has done more to try and hold power to account than assange and manning?
Wonder what the economist is going to write? After all he won their "New Media Award" in 2008 along with Amnesty International UK Media Awards and a few Free Speech awards.
"The media" has been pretty anti-assange for quite some time, increasingly so since the 2016 election, so those awards are forgotten, I'd wager.
It's going to be interesting. On the one hand it's a great opportunity to shit on Trump, on the other hand he's doing their bidding. My guess is that it's going to be a variation of "we hope the cruel man-child in charge isn't going to overstep the lines of due process, we will pay close attention #DemocracyDiesInDarkness", which he won't, and that will be it and everybody is happy, because "he did get his chance in court", like Manning.
Why should anyone love their job? You should love your family and friends, not your job.
I guess it'll be ideal if you could enjoy your job, but it's insane to love it. Besides, most people have a job to survive and eventually retire ( not have job ).
I wonder when and where the idea of loving your job came about.
It's the #1 time consuming thing in your life. You spend most of the day doing it, for most of your life.
It's not the 1800s anymore.
"Unfortunately for these neo-economist thinkers, these proofs belong to the nineteenth century, a time when the misery of the working classes made the right to work the counterpart of the right to be a slave, claimed at the dawn of time by prisoners about to be massacred. Above all it was a question of surviving, of not disappearing physically. The imperatives of production are the imperatives of survival; from now on, people want to live, not just to survive." - Raoul Vaneigem
I think you can love a job without taking it too far. It's true that someone who loves a job could be taken advantage of by an employer who feels like that gives them leverage. And it could lead to problems with work / life balance.
But, I don't think that means a middle road is impossible. One can love food without being overweight. You just have to practice moderation. Loving something doesn't mean there are no limits to how much of it you try to cram into your life.
They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china.
1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.
1600 marines could occupy the heck out of a non-trivial amount of land. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not like the USS Wasp would show up on a beach of some million person, do an amphibious assault in it's own, and then get an Insta message from the other armed forces saying "we're gonna be late, still playing Fortnite because no parents lol". Military campaigns are ridiculously large, complex, and coordinated. It's not a one ship operation (unless you watch The Last Ship).
With air support, 1600 marines could probably seize any city on the planet. The key is, strike first and hard before the enemy has time to mobilize. Destroying their comms, they'll have no way to repel them, because aside from the people fleeing on foot, the enemy's central command will be completely unaware that an invasion took place, only that they're being attacked.
This is exactly what happened with war in Iraq. The enemy was completely unable to mobilize.
Naturally, if the enemy is already in a war-time posture and already mobilized, you can't employ this tactic for any city, but it might be enough to seize a port or other piece of strategic infrastructure (such as an air field).
1600 Marines even with air support is not enough to seize a city (by reasonable definition). Sadar City and Fallujah show that even asymmetric Opfor can provide a serious threat.
Of course this is different when conducting maneuver warfare such as the initial invasion of Iraq in 03, still took 250,000 troops 3 weeks to claim 'victory'.
If we're talking about most developed cities outside they US they're going to have a hard time waging an asymmetric war without a substantial amount of semi-automatic rifles. If we're talking about better armed populace like you are in the middle east yes it is indeed very difficulty to hold a city with such a force.
Depends on your desired level of despotism. Could be achieved with 'shoot anything that moves' strategy. Asymmetric response with artillery and airstrikes on any hostile target.
People have tried playing exceedingly dirty in the past - colonial powers, especially. It doesn't usually work. Ultimately, unless you're willing to build your own infrastructure, you need to rely on local infrastructure. That requires supporters who won't try and sabotage you at every turn, and report everything you do to the enemy. Building your own infrastructure takes lots of people, money, and time. Successful asymmetric warfare works exactly the opposite way to killing all your enemies - it works by taking a group of your enemies, then convincing them you're the better bet.
There are different approaches, it depends entirely on what your strategic goals are for the city. You can drop leaflet propaganda informing citizens to evacuate such as they did in Aleppo [1] and many other places. The premise is simple: give harbor to combatants and you will be treated as such.
Here's a great site that has some leaflets from the Iraq war: [2]
Just like congress likes pensions, government healthcare and yearly raises ( voted on by congress conveniently enough ) for themselves but not for ordinary folks.
It's strange how the elites want the best for themselves but not for the masses.
Money for me, none for thee. Rules for thee, none for me. It's good to be king.
To get to the top you have to in some way be competitive. Many of these people are hyper competitive, and while it is great in many ways, it sucks because it makes a person always want more. They don't want poor people to be poor, they just want to have more money than their other peers.
As with everything, there will be winners and losers. If predictions hold, the northern hemisphere is going to be the big winner as the northern hemisphere ( primarily siberia, alaska and much of canada ) hold significant amount of inaccessible land that will become available. But just as importantly ( or even more importantly ), if the arctic passage along siberia and the northwest passage opens up, it will be an immense boon to the world economy and trade as it will shorten shipping by 30% or even more. And of course the resources ( oil, minerals, etc ) locked in the arctic will become accessible.
Don't believe the propaganda or hype online about the world ending. There will be disruption but there will also be opportunity. The media loves to hype "end of world" nonsense for clicks. In my relatively short period of time, I've lived through so many "end of world" media hypes that it is hard to take them seriously anymore.
Countries, banks, businesses, etc aren't planning for the end, they are fighting over new opportunities in the coming decades.
I find this line of thinking offensively short-sighted. Suppose for a moment there might be less economic activity--much, much less--due to famine from cratering populations of insects, fish, etc., etc. Or even something stupid like microplastics may have already put into motion an unavoidable catastrophe.
Why are you using the internet or living in the first world then? Instead of talking a good game, why not do something yourself? If you really believed the nonsense you are saying.
Ah, the "unavoidable collapse". I used to think like you because I consumed so bullshit from the news/media. I can't remember how many times "the world was ending". Super bacteria, acidic ocean, peak oil ( remember that one ), supervolcanoes, bees gone, butterflies gone, etc.
Listen, if things were truly getting as bad the propaganda claims, all the rich people's assets would be seized, nobody would be allowed to fly, own yachts and all global shipping would be stopped. If the fearmongering were true, but obviously it is not since the same people fearmongering about climate change are also pushing for more global trade, more consumption and more pollution/environmental destruction.
Do you know what is the biggest source of environmental carnage and climate change? Globalism. Do you know what the fearmongers want more of? Globalism. So maybe the world isn't going to end as they'd like you to believe. Maybe the fearmongering is about something else?
You have to look at it from a statistical point of view. The homosexual population is insignificantly small in a statistical sense. A small percentage increase in homosexuality in either sex isn't going to skew the data much. Also, even if there are more lesbians, it doesn't necessarily mean they are having more sex. "Lesbian bed death" exists for a reason. We know that lesbians don't have as much sex as other sexual groupings. And though more women are willing to try lesbianism than men are willing to be gay, it's also true that more lesbians leave lesbianism and marry men than gay men leave homosexuality and marry women. But in any case, the numbers of gay and lesbians are so small that it really doesn't affect the overall trend we are seeing.
Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies.
Response to (sridca):
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire.
But you can't have an "awesome life" if your major desires ( food, shelter and sex ) aren't met.
Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments.
Can you live without sex? Sure. Can you live an "awesome life" without sex. I highly doubt it. But people are willing to rationalize anything I guess.
Food, sex and shelter are pretty much our biological imperatives. Not sure how you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being met.
But if you are happy living a sexless life, then all the best to you. This is a difference of opinion that we are just going to live with.
> Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments.
Strong disagreement here.
Sex is not necessary. It's way overblown, and anyone that has regular sex (or the potential to get it) will concede that point. It's definitely not worth the drama that usually follows it.
Food is necessary, cause without it you will die.
Shelter is necessary, cause without it you will die as well (eventually, not immediately)
Sex it not necessary. In fact, I was always confused and flabbergasted by the lengths people will go to to get it. It's remarkable - it's probably evolution at work, but still never ceases to amaze me. People will tolerate the most insane things I've ever witnessed just to put one reproductive organ into another. If an alien race was watching this, they'd die in laughter.
Also, the obsession with sex that modern cinema, newspapers (think scandals etc.), indirectly facebook/instagram, on every billboard hot naked women are selling you something (hot naked women cleaning service, hot naked women car wash/sales/etc.) cannot be healthy. Just cannot be! I don't understand this obsession at all. Don't people have literally anything better to do? Do people really have this much free time?
OT: I'm glad to see this topic on HN cause the human bonding in general is a very interesting topic. Wish we could discuss it more, cause it feels like we, as a society, just go with the momentum instead of sitting down and thinking long-term consequences of what we are doing. It's almost shameful and definitely looked down upon to suggest traditional values and roles, even though those traditional values were result of thousands of years of various attempts. Surely the previous generations weren't all imbeciles that couldn't conclude what works and what doesn't. I think it's safe to say that what we are doing now cannot work long-term.
It seems like it isn't necessary for you, but you can't project that lack of desire onto the majority. The reality is that if a large subset of people have a strong instinctual desire that goes continually unfulfilled, many will not have satisfying lives. That's not to deny that some won't move beyond it, through focus on other areas or deconstruction of their desire. However, that's unrealistic to expect for the majority.
How exactly is saying it -- that just because most people feel something [desire to have sex] does not make it [that, quoting AQuantized's response to rofo1, sex is a necessity] a fact -- "just like" telling a happy person that he is not really happy and that he only feels happy?
It's a drive. A biologicaly need. In not so recent past, many people (mainly men) risked death (becaues being gay was illegal) just to be able to have sex (and in many places that is probably still true).
So it's unrealistic for you to just dismiss it as "unhealthy obsession".
Edit: life would obviously be much easier and better if we were perfectly natural and had complete control over our instincts. But we're not (well most of us) and we have to deal with it somehow. Maybe sex robots or VR :)
Yes. If it were not for the suffering engendered all this obsession with sex would be highly amusing.
And personally as someone who favours individualism -- despite having grown up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm -- I would not go back to "traditional values" especially as there is no indication whatsoever that traditional societies were any more authentically happier than we are today.
The only way forward is individual autonomy (mentally, emotionally not just economically).
Do you know the difference between need and desire? Can you comprehend how desiring sex is different to needing food and shelter?
It is true that most people, as you indicate, are apparently unable to live an awesome life without sex in horizon. But that does not automatically make sex a "necessary condition" for an awesome life.
> Not sure how you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being met.
A desire, unlike a need, is not set in stone. Aggression is a "basic natural" instinctual passion too; does that mean you are rendered incapable of living an awesome life without going about killing your fellow human beings?
It is clear that you are not "well aware" of the difference between a desire and a need.
You’re arguing pedantry and missing the point. Sex is not a need like food and water, you could say the same thing about any degree of human contact whatsoever.
And yet we know that humans isolated from other humans generally do not turn out well and sexual isolation is a very significant milestone on that spectrum.
The difference between a need and a desire is not a minor detail (which is what the word pedantry would indicate). Let me explain it for you.
need /nēd/
circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity.
de·sire /dəˈzī(ə)r/
a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
The very first thing to do is separate out needs from urges (desires): unless one is living as a hermit off nuts and berries deep in a remote forest one needs one’s fellow human beings for a whole raft of things (I need a shopkeeper to sell me goods as much as a shopkeeper needs me to sell goods to for example) and the most fundamental needs amount to five survival essentials ... air, water, food, shelter (if protection be necessary), and clothing (if the weather be inclement).
The fact that you fail to thoroughly appreciate this makes it unsurprising that you bizarrely place the condition of not engaging in sexual acts (an act of desire) with your fellow human beings to be nearly on the same level as living without being in contact (an act of need) with them.
I'm no wordsmith but isn't it instinctual for humans to want to reproduce? The testosterone level in men are far greater than in women. I would say it's a biological "curse" but also a necessity for the continuation of the human race. It'd be wonderful if you could just train yourself to ignore the testosterone impulses nagging for a release but it seems impossible to me.
Speaking as a male in his late 20s, I've got fulfilling hobbies such as working on my car, biking, exercising and programming with friends. However none of those scratch the biological itch to have physical intimacy. I am actually quite offended you'd ask of me to deny my desires and to call me selfish for wanting to to pursue what is ingrained biologically in me. There is nothing to be gained from setting my bar low for what I want in life.
You'd be amazed how much of this so-called "biological curse" is software-based rather than hardware-based -- have you ever found yourself in the psychological state called "flow" where you momentarily forget about the rest of the world (including the much-cherished sexual desire)?
The human race, if it wants itself to continue, will make that decision just fine using its thinking brain (we are evolved enough to no longer need to rely on instinctual desires for the continuation of species; if anything it only gets in the way--just look at all the wars and suicides and murders and so on).
And no one here said anything about denying a feeling. Your offense is triggered by something you seemed to have imagined. Is sexual desire the new religion? Is questioning the validity of it to be automatically taken as an act of blasphemy?
By the way, aggression is "biological curse" too. So why are we not equally going about killing others and rationalizing it in a similar manner?
No; what's "wrong" -- to keep up with your phraseology -- is to treat sex as the be all and end all of living an awesome life (see the root comment of this thread).
The UK does it and the media spins it as "penalizing social media for harmful online content". China does it and the same media spins it as "oppressing, tyrannizing and controlling the people".
Just like when germany passed censorship laws, the media praised it and russia copied the german censorship laws and the media spun it as "tyrant oppressing and controlling the russian people".
So is romeo and juliet going to be banned suicide because it "encourages" suicide? What about suicide/euthanasia documentaries which support doctor-assisted end of life programs?
What about books like ( bible, koran, mein kampf, etc ) that encourages violence? Is project gutenberg going to be shut down? What about all the media companies who supported wars in iraq, libya and the middle east? Are they going to be shut down? Are they going to be shut down for encouraging violence?
We have government agencies that spread fake news and disinformation. Is that going to be banned? What about PR firms whose business is spreading fake news and disinformation?
And what is children accessing inappropriate material? A christian or muslim parent thinks that lgbt material is inappropriate. Does that mean we have to scrub the internet of lgbt material? An atheist might be religious material as inappropriate for children. Do we ban religious material from the internet?
Whenever politicians use "children" as an excuse to justify more laws and regulations, it's rarely about protecting children. These people don't care about children. They care about power and control.
Once agin, the UK is at the forefront of censorship.
In the early 2000s, extreme violence was indexed on search engines. You just had to actively search for it.
The fact that you had to "deep dive" shows that you have to actively search for it so there goes your argument for more regulation.
Also, there is a difference between regulating and banning. Why are you conflating regulation with censorship? Those are two different things.
And why is showing real violence "far from healthy"? One of the reasons why I didn't join the military was seeing what actual violence. I think it is healthy to show what is really happening.
Maybe if we showed everyone the truth rather than PR packaged fake propaganda, we'd be less inclined to support wars ( territorial, drug, etc ).
If your logic is applied, then everything from porn to rap music to movies and literature needs to be banned.
Why do you and a few members of the british government decide what people can or cannot see based solely on your subjective opinions?
Here is a good article on the direction of the japanese car industry.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/japan-bets-on-a-h...