Good that they suck, people might realize that they may as well refuse the straw, drink from the glass and that their life is exactly as comfortable as before the ban.
You'd need to pull habitations up by a couple meters each year for a few decades if that one km of ice sheet builds up gradually :D Probably survivable, but inside yurts instead of fully furnished flats with amenities.
Individualism is just a polite word for selfishness and a lack of empathy, and it's at the root of many of America's cultural and political problems. We're supposed to be a nation, not 300 million cowboys suffering the indignity of one another's trespass. We can't even fix our basic infrastructure because no one wants to spend their taxes on anything that benefits anyone but themselves. We can't have decent healthcare because it would be "socialist." But we'll shoot each other in the streets because nothing projects individual power more than a loaded gun.
There is a way to be a cohesive society without being assholes to each other. The United States somehow managed that before - more or less. I would not blame "individualism" directly, but we ARE in a timeline where a lot of people strive to be the worst versions of themselves.
Sounds like a copout, but I do insist that many of modern ills can be traced directly to the cancer that is social media. Monetizing rage cannot end well.
I suspect that the US managed its cohesion by keeping everyone but white straight Christian protestant men far from cultural and political power. It's easy to be cohesive when everyone looks, acts and thinks like you, and when the white establishment controls the media and sets cultural norms. Not that I'm advocating for a return to this at all - there are examples outside of the US where multiculturalism works. It just seems to be the case that the US has never really been comfortable living by its principles.
And this is one part of society's ills that I will kind of blame on social media, although not in the way you and a lot of HN people intend. I think a lot of the strife in our modern society comes not from social media algorithms driving outrage so much as other groups simply being able to gain visibility as the centralized media establishment gave way to the far less centralized structure of the web. To people who have grown up their entire life with only rare, token (and often stereotyped) representation of other races, religions and orientations, equality can seem like oppression.
But I do think that blaming social media is kind of a copout, because the argument tends to be that people are being manipulated and controlled by an addiction or a form of mind control, as if they don't have agency or free will. A lot of the discourse around social media right now seems to use the same hyperbole that one might have seen during the Satanic Panic, or any number of previous social panics. But I don't think social media is the problem per se (nor do I think regulating social media would be an effective solution.) I think the problem is what social media exposes in society - exposes, not creates. That's a far more difficult problem to solve because it means reconciling with some deeply systemic issues that a lot of people still don't even want to admit exist.
It isn't, though. Individualism also means things like dying your hair green and being generally fun and original. You can say "selfishness" instead, it's a perfectly good word, and there's no reason to worry about being impolite ... unless you're conforming.
> Just to add a bit more context: after years of trials, one of our former President finally went to jail for a few weeks. And now, they're invited by media all over the country so they can complain about how unfair it was, they published a book about it, sold in the tens of thousands, their son is the new TV's favorite...
Haha I was wondering where this other side of the pond was. This leaves no doubt. Quelle indignité.
For others: it's Sarkozy they are referring to, who was sentenced to 5 years of prison but spent only 20 days in it. He's free until his next trial. For having colluded with terrorists.
Sarkozy is out because in France you're free until proven guilty, unless you represent a risk to society or have a high risk of fleeing, neither apply to him, hence he's free until the final verdict
The other poster said sarkozy was sentenced to 5 years. How was that not the result of having been found guilty? I understand there are more trials to follow but do not see why that would free him.
You can appeal, and until every legal options have been pursued a verdict is not final. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, and you cannot be guilty untill all options have been pursued, you're free until the appeal has been completed.
They don't, that's why their CEO needs everyone else to believe they need to keep on hiring juniors aggressively so AWS can poach them a couple years down the line if needed
