Realistically, given a condition where it stood in their way, they'd probably just eliminate it themselves
CarbonIceDragon
I know, I was just pointing out how, with the wealth he has, economic hardship just doesn't really happen for him in the same way it does for everyone else
Not even, you could literally take 90% of Elon Musk's money and it wouldn't really hurt any more than it hurts to see one's score in a video game go down. He'd still be among the richest people on the planet.
This discussion is making me vaguely wonder if you could poison a chatbot AI's training data by putting enough Trump speeches in it.
You're overthinking it. I was referring to Trump himself, because at the moment he is a past president, and he would have done this because, well, he just did it. It was just an attempt at humor based on the fact that Trump himself is technically in the "former president" category and not some deeper dig at Clinton.
I mean, technically there is a past president who would have, but I know that's not what you mean
well no, there just arent any wind turbines as far as I remember. No solar either
I mean, theres geothermal
Satisfactory is a weird game where coal and oil are renewable, but trees, as far as I'm aware, are not.
Back when computers were nowhere near capable of teaching kids, one can handwave away issues with the tech by saying "when the tech is ready to do this, it will be great" essentially. When the tech is at the point where it can sort of do something, but not do it well, one instead imagines how badly things might go if one tried the notion right now instead of at whatever point in the future the technology is good enough to actually do a good job.
I mean, It has partially worked, information is more accessible than it would be if you had to go find a library and search through a ton of book that may or may not even have what youre looking for, or had to try to find someone who knew something or had some skill that you wanted to learn. And it has brought together people across distance, consider the number of online communities and subcultures whos members live in far-removed places, some of whom might be in fairly small towns or rural areas that just wouldnt have enough people of a particular interest to even have a branch of that community there. And it does also reduce the monopoly on dissemination of news and information that traditional media outlets and governments used to share. Its just, the predictions didnt also take into account that it would increase the ease of spreading false information either, or that not all debates have an answer that is obvious to everyone if only they are presented certain info, or that people wont want to talk to everyone and will instead choose to talk to those they find commonality with even given the means to talk to people they dont.
Isnt this the exact reason why there was such concern over the idea of Threads federating with the fediverse at large?