My understanding is that Mao was a rural peasant from the distant Countryside who was looked down on and marked by his more (self declared) socialist Coastal betters along China's Coast who were contesting with the kmt and later Japanese invasion. The idea that Mao invented the communist or socialist revolution in China is laughable because that revolution had been ongoing prior to Mao's entrance into it. My understanding is that Mao was the guy that stood up and said look, the peasants in the Hinterlands are an Unstoppable Army that is going to come flooding from distant and Central China on to the coast and push all opposition aside and so Mao was basically saying that that the Communists should be attempting to position themselves as favorably as possible in relation to the rising peasant tide of discontent in China. If anything the concern is that if you say anything that the modern Chinese Communist party does not like or agree with they will disappear you to all the corners of the Earth. It is probably only in Taiwan that you could speak openly and honestly about the nature of modern Chinese history from let's say 1900 to the current day. They probably have a better accounting of what was actually going on, and that will soon be deleted by the now dominant Communist Party of China. You can see how they have treated their assimilation of Hong Kong, and Macau before them to imagine what awaits Taiwan.
Because while the post-war Confederation was anaemic, leading to the Founders adopting a new constitution that would give the federal government more power, it was only enough power as was deemed necessary at the time. For example, Congress must name the powers upon which it is acting. It may require nosediving down a rabbit hole of citations to other laws, but at the end of that trail is a reference to an enumerated power within the Constitution.
Congress may be dysfunctional, but that doesn’t magically enumerate more powers to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court must act within its remit. And as I mentioned in another thread, the federal judiciary is the least defined branch of the three, which given the enumerated nature of the Constitution should mean the federal judiciary should be the most restrained. Except that the Supreme Court has arguably become the most powerful branch due to their self-proclaimed stewardship of the Constitution that neither of the other branches can check or balance.
It's sad how in the state of Washington I have become accustomed to drawing my ID out on every transaction that involves confirming that I'm over 21 whereas cross the border into Idaho there's not a single time I have ever been asked to provide my ID in over 10 years. Clearly in Idaho they can take one look at me and go like well yeah clearly but such visual social technology is beyond the pale in the great creepy state of Washington. I'm a bit sad to think of what the children of today's children will be like when I am very old and they are very young. Maybe one day nobody will know what it was like to live in a society that was able to just tell things by looking at it.
Your comment is too terse for me, I can't parse it. Both Cantwell and Rodgers are moderate politicians from opposing parties in the state of Washington. What certification are you referring to?
This is all marketing. All the speed tiers, all the add-ons, etc. are all marketing. There's no technical reason for any of it. 5G has huge bandwidth, and the fiber backhaul has huge bandwidth. The most that can be argued is that a saturated link needs fair queueing applied to it to give customers fair bandwidth while the company installs more capacity.
But you can't underprovision and then charge a premium for a fast lane if you are running the company on technical principles.
If you asked for justification, the carrier would say that tethering is usually used for business needs, and the increased use would be unfair to non-business users.
Hopefully we get good and hard the democracy that we have long been promised; and good and hard because you only get an outcome that people whose lives have been utterly and entirely unlike your own are the ones making the rules for how you and yours will be to the end of your days. Sounds like a lot of fun right? It sure is interesting how people's opinions change when they realize what kind of people are the ones getting to make the rules for everybody from here on out.
So obey me and obey my command upon what is good and right and acceptable; this is surely some sort of authoritarian on consensual pressure pushed upon people that might otherwise have a contrary opinion. Good to see you lay it out so sordidly and so sorry in terms of your own prior biases which you yourself must necessarily deny even exist. Isn't that right?
