Both can be true. Just because you've created a revolutionary product doesn't mean it's a viable business, let alone one worth $700+ billion. There is a lot of history of the first movers that created revolutionary products that eventually faded away into nothing, while others capitalized on the innovation.

> There is a lot of history of the first movers that created revolutionary products that eventually faded away into nothing, while others capitalized on the innovation.

I'd say most first movers fade away. Microsoft wasn't the first OS, Google wasn't the first search engine, Facebook wasn't the first social network... etc... etc... etc...

Trusting your own eyes over what someone else says is brainwashed? What kind of ass backwards assessment is this?

Taxes aren't just there to provide an income stream to the government. It's also a mechanism to guide behavior via incentives (or punishment). Right or wrong there we're providing an incentive to hold assets longer, or use less fuel or buy from domestic producers etc.

IIRC, this was one of the main arguments for the Articles of Confederacy, the states were pretty nervous about this exact situation.

This was reaffirmed by Marshall [1] with the famous “the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/mcculloch-v-mar...

In both cases though, mostly rich people.

Even that isn't what's happened here. If we continue the analogy it's more like stop paying for wifi, then later discover you need it for work so sign up again at and pay an extra fee.

There is so much conflation (maybe intentional, I dunno) between the goal of cutting spending and the method that DOGE employed. If DOGE went in methodically and actually cut waste and fraud I'd cheer them. What actually happened was a mixture of:

- Cutting things without knowing the details and then later having bring them back at extra cost (e.g. employees)

- Cutting things regardless of consequence based on ideological views (or just randomly?)

- Not actually saving anything and just lying about it

dunning-kruger effect at the corporate level?

How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?

- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work

- Visiting a naughty shop

- Going into various companies for interviews while employed

With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.

South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore all had significantly lower crime rates before CCTVs were all over the public space.

EDIT: also, most crime happens at home, so if you really want a large reduction put cameras in everyone's home too.

Or sugar?

Weed isn't designed to be anything, but it certainly is addictive in the same sense that social media is. There is no physical addiction (which is also true for TikTok), but there are definitely people that are hooked on it.

it is habit forming, but its not designed to be, by some of the brightest minds of a generation.