Hence my apology for the imprecise language. I meant what you said by social democracy, not a social economic system. Anyways, if we're being pedants, there are no true socialists or capitalists in today's markets. They're all mixed-market economies.
When I say socialist (and what is more accurately social democracy), I first think of healthcare, then I think of transit, then of education, and then of utilities. These are things that the US certainly could do better.
I think the reason is important. If you stick to something because you think it is the right thing to do, that is conviction. If you stick to something because you think you must continue as you have already invested effort into, that is sunk cost. The point that I'm trying to make, that perhaps I have not worded well, is that you must act with conviction, because if you do not do what you think is right, you either not do anything, or do what you think is wrong. Sure, you may be wrong at the time, and you should be open to reflection, and not be prey to sunk cost.
But coming up with convenient excuses to avoid doing what you think is inconvenient but right is not how leaders behave.
And in this context (if that is what you mean), it is definitely not evident that supporting Ukraine is a strategy that won't work.
Forgive my previous imprecise language, but isn't this merely a matter of semantics? I was under the impression that the major countries in Europe are socialist (or if you prefer, social democracies, hence what I meant but European "socialism"), and they drive policy in the EU. But as the top comment said, they have agency to do things on their own behalfs.
If you move without conviction, then does it matter if you are right or wrong? You will never learn from your mistakes.
Well, if you count the corporations as people and give them votes proportional to their income, income does seem to be exceeding inflation. I'm sure in no time trickle-down economics will allow us poor folk to see some of that wealth. I for one certainly already see the wealth that my lovely landlady possesses.
I hate Apple as it's an anti-competitive walled-garden monopolistic closed-standard anti-repair evil trillion dollar corporation, but this isn't true. Modern iPhones have closed the gap significantly in hardware specs (display, processor, optics, IPXX rating, and now thanks to EU even USB-C) and they've always been better for general use in software. That, added with the fact that flagship Android manufacturers have learned how to play the pricing games of Apple, means that Apple's price to performance ratio is pretty competitive with Android phones these days.
Their main products are pretty good these days, as much as I hate to admit it. I've never even owned an Apple device, and won't as long as I can.
Well, capitalism definitely has a role, but it's not exactly a coincidence that China started out with cheap labor (and maintained it so). A country that manipulates its currency for specifically for export reasons is definitely also to blame. (Before you say but US also manipulates currency, the levels of currency manipulation are not comparable: if they were, BRICs would be our world reserve currency)
Anyways, new places don't go to China for labor, they go for overall manufacturing costs.
All that said, from my (somewhat limited) experience Chinese manufacturing is sort of a niche. If you're willing to invest all the resources into NRE and QC and not afraid of corporate espionage of your manufactured product, you can definitely save a lot of money (China really isn't all that good for prototype or small batch manufacturing if you need a made-to-order part/product as the headache from language barrier and quality issues are greater than the cost savings). Apple clearly makes it work because they don't care if you copy their PCBs - good luck copying their custom-designed ICs.
"Creating streets that are safe and pleasant for people outside of cars promotes alternatives to driving." I don't disagree with this, but the problem is that in the US there often aren't any alternatives to cars to get around. And to be frank, I'm not gonna be walking around on the streets of LA (where I live, insert your crime-ridden US metropolitan here) unless I have good reason to. Getting hit by a car due to RTOR is the least of my worries as a pedestrian. I think a lot of change is necessary (such as locations of stores, etc) beyond safe streets to reduce the need for cars. For instance, if costs of living in the city were better, people wouldn't need to use cars to commute. Maybe it's a starting point to fixing our transportation issue but honestly I don't see it.
"A minute or two delay... actually doesn't amount to very much, and that's what a typical case would be of forcing a driver to wait an additional cycle." You say this, and it might be the case the vast majority of the time, especially if the stoplights are separated by a large distance and there aren't many cars, but traffic is a distributed problem and without seeing some sort of study that indicates this I don't buy into it. During heavy traffic, if the cars from one intersection back up into a previous intersection due to reduced throughput I can't imagine how an additional cycle is the only cost. Maybe this is just dependent on the traffic situation, because I have a natural bias to think towards traffic situations in LA (which don't necessarily represent the rest of the US).
"The Philadelphia paper is the seminal work on all way stops being safer than signals in urban contexts." Can you tell me who the authors of this paper are or maybe offer me a link? I would like to read it, thank you.
"Studies on roundabouts being safer are... even more conclusive and abundant. I really can't cite just one because damn, there's so damn many."
Yeah so I'm pretty sure roundabouts are better in every way except for space. But if only getting more space would be easier, because surely we could just replace a lot of our roads with trains at that point right? I think roundabouts are a red herring because they literally don't fit in most of these intersections (they don't even have space for a left turn lane in many of the intersections I drive in). Heck, if we're talking about space-throughput tradeoffs we could just theoretically make every single intersection a graded interchange and that would provide a huge amount of throughput (but this too is a red herring).
P(passing) = 1- P(failure)
P(failure) = P(failure first try)*P(failure second try)
P(failure first try)=(3/4)^2
P(failure second try)=(gonna post in reply)