NPR is pretty great for left leaning media.

I’m hardcore socialist, but I have some libertarian friends that just want to smoke weed, they have more in common with anarchists than Republicans.

I deeply hope that’s not a core tenant of libertarianism, how abhorrent.

A core tenant of socialism is a democratized workplace, being able to vote for your wage and company policy, like an Engineer choosing when to launch instead of some MBS degree.

Last time I checked I dont think factory workers in China that make all our shit can do that.

This guy is a literal moron, you cannot frame the world from a settler-colonist mindset and tell me with a straight face that “Russia Good”, “China Good”.

Thats not anti-facism, socialism, or anti-imperialism, thats just anti-US.

Its open source isn’t it? It still has the same problems but on a privacy level, having it be open source is much better.

Absolutely!!

There are video games that work like card games, you’d love Balatro or Magic the Gathering.

If you like puzzles, Tetris is the perfect start, its the greatest puzzle game of all time. Tetris Effect and Tetris 99 are good recent games for that.

Many games work like movies too, so if you like movies those are nice.

If you like books, there is a genre of game called a visual novel, (most of those are from Japan though, but many have an English option for text)

That’s not what anarchism is.

I like to call anarchism as neighborliness extended as a political ideology. Consider it libertarianism with a pinch of collectivism

You do it all the time when you organize a group of friends to go to the movies. There is no elected leader.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, they destroyed a lot of public and military comms infrastructure, so the military ended up teaming up with anarchists because they had a decentralized comms going.

Anarchism is compatible with existing political ideologies, however in my opinion works best at small scales.

A lot of people dont understand US foreign policy. Do not interpret my post as taking a stance.

US foreign policy is all about 3 key issues, carrot and stick diplomacy, containing China and Russia, and protecting the global market.

Carrot and stick diplomacy is using positive reinforcement to make changes in totalitarian governments.

Containing China is all about making friends with countries near China and putting a base there, along with allowing companies, military arms deals, and joint intelligence to happen in that country.

• That is why the US wants Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize. And do to that, the US turns a blind eye to tons of bullshit done by countries in the Middle East. If they were to normalize, then a solid logistics chain from Europe to the Gulf can be established, and the two countries would bolster the front there. Then the US could pivot its power projection over to Taiwan.
• The US is powerful, but its not tactically sound to manage three fronts at the same time.

If you remember how pissed off the US got when Russia put missiles in Cuba, then you can see why China and Russia will team up with everyone they can to foil this plan to contain them.

Since the world is now globalized, the US has to protect lots of boats carrying oil, chips, and food. If something fucks up, then everyone pays for it. Of course, if youre resisting western imperialism then its in your best interest to make people suffer by blowing up the boats.

Now geopolitics makes sense.

From here, then if youre an idealist, you can make an informed opinion on US foreign policy. Should the US continue its world police campaign at the expense of people suffering under its allies?

Can you achieve US foreign policy goals without suffering?

Will a reversal of US foreign policy lead to more domestic suffering in the West due to economic turmoil?

These questions should be debated and examined thoroughly.

Nope its definitely accurate!

Indycar does not have a constructors championship, and the format encourages each car to operate as its own team, and since all the teams (except McLaren) are owned by one random guy, that encourages them to make each car they field to have more sponsors. And the brand appeal of like, one guy, isn’t as powerful as something like McLaren, a famous car company with the color Orange.

Anyone heard of Penske? RLL? Meyer Shank? Dale Coyn? No. Aside from Penske, those other names are only big names within Indycars history, just like Hendricks is only big inside Nascar history.

IndyCar is pretty popular, but because of the company split in the 90s, there was no one to compete with Nascar throughout the 90s and 00s in terms of US popularity. So essentially the entire series is really behind and hasnt built up financial appeal to sponsors.

Thus, in order to keep staying in business, the teams sell ad space on the cars anytime they can, leading to teams running special liveries for one race, a driver bringing a big sponsor so the team changes the car to accomodate, and all the cars look different.

Different enough to warrant a spotters guide for a few races.

IndyCar could change that by enforcing a team liverie, but I bet the teams wouldn’t like that.

For an average race, the teams don’t really do team orders. It’s VERY rare. And teams usually allow their own drivers to fight hard all the time. Since teams as a whole don’t affect the race, you don’t focus on that much.

Team owners only care if one of their drivers causes another to crash, and they don’t care who wins because each driver they field is another chance at a win.

I don’t know if you’re referring to Gaza or Israel on October 7th, but here’s a press conference about the burned bodies.

youtu.be/SoTItPHa6mw?si=zPYvRhDoj1D-nwSB