I don't think he does. He says "If we get technology to go at speed of light", "at speed of light" the speed of light is 1c.
His previous sentence also makes no sense
> To put some thing in perspective. If we get an instant teleport technology to go there tomorrow, it will be a planet that had passed 5 times more time then we know since our humanity almost went extinct 60k years ago.
The light we see from the planet is 3000 years old not 5 times 60k. Space is big, but not as big as OP seems to think. The diameter of the Milky Way is only 150,000–180,000 light-years light years. All the exoplanets we have detected are within the Milky Way.
Why doesnt china have the freedom to choose what commerce they want to engage in? If the US didnt want the chinese selling HP servers to Iran, they should not have sold them to China. If China jailed Tim Cook for selling iPhones to Taiwan that were intended for export to Europe, the US would rightly flip out.
China does have that freedom. The difference is, Tim Cook didn't sign any export control documents, and as of current, they don't exist. In the US the export control documents do exist, Huawei was a signatory as part of parting in the American Economy & Commercial sector. So this analogy doesn't make sense.
Just as China doesn't allow Western products in their markets without a substantial consideration to China, usually in the form of joint partnerships with domestic companies vs direct sales. That's their right, the western companies wishing to engage in the market often times will find out their cost / benefit and act accordingly. All of the companies are held and managed under Chinese law and as such many have had things stripped from them.
GDPR and CCPA are just the beginning. Regulation will absolutely play a role in the fight for internet privacy. I sympathize with the libertarian instinct, but the only way to acheive what you want is to raise awareness of the problem and build a new consensus of how things should work. Once you've done that there's not much difference between everyone agreeing to use duck duck go and agreeing to laws that make Google's tracking impossible.
The ad blocking arms race is not one a few hackers will win against a multi-trillion dollar industry. The easiest way to organize people to fight back is through the democratic process, but it is still a ton of work.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of grassroots movements. Telling your friends and family to install uBlock Origin and use Firefox instead of Chrome can work, because it worked before to usurp IE during the IE glory days.
Using firefox doesn't address the fundamental problems of current internet business models and permissive web standards.
Chrome doesn't lock you in to google services. It shapes web standards to advance google's interests and protect it from standards that would interfere with its revenue stream. As Firefox must implement the Chrome spec, it's just along for the ride.
Google has previously tried to neuter uBlock Origin, and they will probably do it again. Using Firefox is a good way to remove the power Google has over the web.
Along with this I would push hard for a new voting system, such as STAR, so that when we're fed up with the mainstream parties that we can vote a third party without wasting our vote. You can push for it at your local level too.
What? First link is about fast food chains wanting food stamps. 1- not actual cash handout 2. illustrates my point of pressure by fast food corporations looking for handout money.
Second blurry link is about population growth, showing Africa expanding. That is missing the matching curves of extreme poverty falling drastically for those regions [1], even for sub-Saharan Africa. Further supporting my points of outdated approach to combat poverty.
Capitalism is doing good in some ways by lifting all those people from poverty. But they are falling into a trap of poor health and poor money management.
The GOP has supported immigration since the civil war. Both parties are controlled by the same political forces, and neither are on the real left or right, however hard though they pretend to be.
This is an american perspective. In the UK, people are proud to be "on the dole" and very few support restricting it.
EDIT: Of course brits will still look for work. My point is that Ive seen brits in talk shows audiences talk about taking public assistence without thinking of themselves as "bad people" the way American conservatives would. The desire to eliminate all public assistance is absent in Europe. Don't mean to offend brits, I think you guys have the right attitude here. Take assistance if you need it and dont needlessly refuse to help others.
As a Brit, I've never heard of anyone being "proud" of being on the dole - and the actual amount people get from Jobseekers Allowance and Universal Credit are pitifully tiny - the current JSA of £75/week doesn't even cover my weekly food shopping costs, let alone my mortgage.
The notion that people are proud to be 'on the dole' in the UK is deeply pejorative and not at all backed up by the evidence.
For example, sequence LFM2 at the Office of National Statistics entitled "inactive - wants a job". That's 1,869,000 people at the last estimate.
The overwhelming number of people who end up short of work due to the structural failures of our current economic system want to work. And they should have the opportunity to do so.
People on "the dole" here in the UK make up about 5% of benefits claims[1], and the proportion who are on it voluntarily is smaller still. It's a tiny number. Even if they are proud of it, there are significantly bigger problems that are easier and cheaper to solve than worrying about people who are voluntarily unemployed.
It's a slang term for unemployment benefit. That's somewhat confused these days because there isn't such a thing as unemployment benefit in the UK any more. There's "jobseeker's allowance", "income support", "housing benefit", "universal credit", and a few others, all of which can be claimed by people who are currently looking for work, or in work but on a low income, or who are unable to work. It's a confusing minefield designed to put people off claiming what they're legally entitled to.
