If you put it to the vote across all species in the world, humanity going extinct would be OK.

I use RSS a lot but it is not without it's own difficulties.

My collection of feeds is naturally geared to my own interests and world views. As a result I do find I miss out on some things I should pay attention to. To counter this I include a fact checking site which brings stories I would otherwise miss to my attention. Not ideal, but it works.

This is very much true, and one of the downsides of RSS is that you need to make effort to discover new sources, or make sure that what you're consuming is at least somewhat balanced. However you have no guarantees of the latter when you use algorithmic feeds.

Yeh, but don't mention Jesus. He was off message for current thinking.

Still no idea what you mean.

Losing you job because of your views is not violence, but it may as well be. Fearing authority, having to move away from your home, none of these is violence but they are real and unacceptable. The author here is playing with words.

"Fearing authority, having to move away from your home"

not violence, these are results of violence, its not always physical injury, and that often isnt the point of the violence, its the coercion, the threat of more violence if you dont obey.

there are different types of violence, such as coercive, sadistic, transgressional..

Yes, it makes me despair that we in more tolerant societies may need to break away if things get too bad.

Thanks. That needs to be in an HN guide somewhere, along with: online services cost money to run so don't be surprised that they need either fees or advertising.

Yes, the "or else" appears to be we will leave you at the mercy of China and potentially loose 100% of the chips which are so important to us. Is this just political theatre for home consumption?

They seem to believe Intel is a drop-in domestic replacement for TSMC, or can be made so with enough money injected. This would hand the only place actually capable of making these advanced chips today directly to China.

It is amazing the article fails to point out, but perhaps not so in the current climate of fear.

> expressing foreign-policy disagreement

Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.

> Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo

At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.

My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.

That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.

You are missing quite a bit. It is not obviously quid pro quo in diplomatic relations but on that point you are partially correct. If the US for one reason or another cuts ties with Israel, it loses its main influence in the middle east and other countries would probably quite happily pick up the tap. Only some are from the region, others are not.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with Larry Ellison and frankly this whole thread is mostly idiotic. It could have been an interesting topic but some seem to have other priorities. Which are quite transparent.