How can you be this confused?
You’re basically proving the point of this meme.
The question is basically “Are Americans aware of how the world perceives them?”
Possible answers to that question are: “Yes, I read DW news in English, and BBC news too. I’m aware of how the world perceives the US.” Or “No, I can imagine how the world must view the US, but I only read US news so I can only guess.”
Are people in the US
Yes, go on…
aware that they are now definitely a rogue state
The question isn’t your awareness of what the government is doing. It’s your awareness of how the US is perceived by the rest of the world. A rogue state is “a nation that is considered very dangerous to other nations”. To answer that question, you have to reference other nations views on the US.
Saying what is inevitable? That other countries will consider the US a rogue state?
You’re one of the few people who actually understood the question. As a result, you’re one of the few who actually got the right answer.
Doubt it.
What non-American news sources do you read? Do you really think that more than 50% of the US actually consults non-American news sources?
It figures it takes someone calling themselves “CanadaPlus” to actually see the actual question and answer it.
Everyone else is answering about how aware Americans are about what’s happening, but the question was about whether Americans were aware of how the world perceived the US. The answer, of course, is “no, Americans have no idea because Americans consume almost no non-American media”.
Note, that this isn’t actually the question. It’s not whether Americans are aware of what’s happening, it’s about whether Americans are aware of how the rest of the world perceives the US.
This is the closest anybody in the thread has actually come to answering the question. The full answer is that Americans almost never consult non-American news sources, so of course they’re not aware of how they’re perceived in the rest of the world.
This doesn’t seem to be actually answering the question. The question was about how the US was perceived by other countries, not how Americans perceive their own government.
Interesting, but not surprising that this doesn’t really answer the question. The question was about whether Americans were aware of how the US was perceived outside its borders.
I don’t think that applies here. 1/3 in each group is fair for domestic matters. But, OP is asking about perceptions of the US by people in other countries.
In that case, even the 1/3 that is opposed to what’s happening will contain a lot of people with no idea how the rest of the world sees the US. For example, of the 1/3 of Americans who deeply oppose what’s happening, what fraction do you think actually read Le Monde or Deutsche Welle, or are even aware that they have an English-language service?
And, the 1/3 that is fully supportive of what’s happening will contain a lot of people who think that this is improving how the rest of the world sees the US. Sure, some will be aware and will still be defiant in the face of how the rest of the world is reacting. But, others will be watching Fox News or Newsmax and will hear propaganda that convinces them that the rest of the world admires and respects the US more than ever for taking a decisive stand against the deep state.
So, as with anything involving something happening outside the US, I’d guess more than 50% of Americans have no idea what the rest of the world is thinking.
Critically important in Montreal where the temperature in the winter can get to -20C pretty regularly, and summers can often hit +35C.
You also expose more walls to wear and tear from the elements, and some of those surfaces (like the exposed bottom floor of an apartment 20m up in the air) will be hard to do maintenance on.
The whole reason that Google exists today is that their PageRank algorithm was a great way to identify good content. At its basics, it worked by counting the number of pages that linked to a certain page. More incoming links meant the page was more useful. It didn’t matter how many relevant search terms you stuffed into your page. What matters was votes from other people, expressed in the form of linking to your page.
But, that algorithm failed for 2 reasons. One is that it became cheaper and easier to put up sites that linked to sites you wanted to promote. The other was that people stopped blogging on their own blogs, and stopped creating their own websites, and instead used walled gardens like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. That meant it was hard to measure links back to a site, and that it was easier to create fake links.
So, now it’s a constant war of SEO people vs. Google Search Quality people, and the Google people are losing. Sometimes there are brief victories for Google which result in good Reddit results appearing higher up. Then the SEO people catch up and either pollute Reddit and/or push Reddit links off the first page.
It would all be really depressing even if it weren’t for generative AI being used to pollute everything. With LLMs coming in and vomiting their content all over everything, we might be forced back to the bad old days of Yahoo where some individual human curated lists of good things and 99% of content was invisible.
We need to talk about data as a physical object.
We need to admit that it isn’t and that that’s a terrible metaphor.
It’s still saved on disks somewhere, whether they’re a traditional HDD or a modern SSD.
Yes, often multiple copies are saved. Sometimes it is aggregated with other data, sometimes not. Making a new copy is insanely cheap, and, under the hood, even when just moving the data from the hard drive to the computer’s memory, a copy is made automatically. There’s no way to avoid copying the data.
But, to make it clear, “data” is basically “ideas”, and you can’t really treat ideas as objects. For thousands of years the idea that you could control ideas was ridiculous. You could control the physical object that an idea was expressed on, but if someone took their own time and copied it, that was a new object and the person who made the original had no claim on it.
Copyright, and its evil friends, is a relatively new concept where the government grants a temporary monopoly on the expression of an idea. Stealing the physical object on which the idea is printed is one thing. But, now you can get in trouble for “stealing” the idea. That’s what you’re talking about with stealing “data”, is that what you’re supposedly “stealing” is information.
But, of course it’s not theft. When you copy an idea without permission, the person with the original doesn’t lose it, they just lose control over a copy of that information.
Treating ideas, data, etc. as physical objects just never works because ideas can be copied without the original person losing anything. This is different from physical objects where my taking it necessarily means that you no longer have it.
In other words, data was always as physical as words on the page of a book.
Not at all, because each copy of a book is its own physical object. Copying a book is difficult and requires its own printing press. Even a low-fidelity copy like a photocopy requires a photocopy machine, ink and paper. Copying data is essentially free. When copying a book required a printing press, you could sort-of pretend that ideas were objects because copying was so burdensome. But, with digital data it’s clearly ridiculous. That doesn’t mean you can’t have laws about data (i.e. information), it just means that those laws care going to have to be completely different from laws about physical objects.
Why did we accept the change in how ownership worked simply because of a change of storage medium?
Because copying is essentially free. It’s no longer an object, it’s information.
But, having said that, the storage medium isn’t a major issue. The real question is when did people start accepting that you could treat ideas as objects. Stealing a book out of someone’s backpack and photocopying a book are completely different crimes. In one case, the person no longer has the object. In the second case, they still have it, but they don’t have control over the copies of it.
Talking about data as if it’s an object or something you can own is a red herring. The real issue is privacy.
For instance, say you use a period tracker app, that is owned by an non-profit, trying to use the data to better understand women’s hormone changes so that they can get better medical care. Great! Ok, now what happens if that non-profit goes bankrupt and as part of the bankruptcy proceedings sells its data to Meta or Google so that it can afford to make payroll. Well shit, your data is now owned by them, and you’re out of luck.
A privacy rule handles that situation better. You can give the company access to your private data, and then revoke that access later. If your data is something they own, they can use it however they like. But, if you own your own privacy, it doesn’t matter if the period tracker app gets bought out or goes bankrupt or whatever. The data they have isn’t something they own and can sell, it’s private data that they had temporary access to.
They don’t have a monopoly like any of their competition that will easily sustain them.
Erm, you think Bing is a serious competitor? Aside from search (91.54% of the global search market), Google is part of an ads duopoly that is only stalled by walled gardens like Amazon, TikTok, Wal*Mart, and the various entertainment companies. There’s also Google Maps, used by 77% of users between 16 and 64, and their biggest non-iOS competitor is Waze, which Google also owns. For email, 75% of the US email market is dominated by Gmail. As for the user-generated media market, YouTube absolutely dominates that. The closest competitor (Twitch, A.K.A. Amazon) is far behind.
As for what Google engineers do, it’s mostly not rip-things-up-and-start-over innovation since these are all very mature markets with billions of users. Instead it’s small tweaks that generate hundreds of millions in savings or additional revenue.
IMO it’s more important to talk about the specific elements of the system, because all the successful systems have used mixes of other systems.
Which is why the only systems that have ever worked are mixed systems that account for human nature.
A 100% democratic system would have problems because nobody would have any experience or expertise, so people would govern based on ignorance. A 100% communist system doesn’t work because we don’t have a fair system to allocate resources, and as soon as someone becomes in charge of allocating resources, they allocate more for themselves. Even 100% authoritarian systems don’t work because a dictator has to sleep sometime. There may be a figurehead / leader in an authoritarian system, but unless that person delegates some power and control, they’ll be killed and replaced pretty quickly.
You’re just redefining the word to make it meaningless.
You could argue that everything is actually anarchy because there are no “god given” or evolutionary required hierarchies. You could argue that everything is authoritarian because as soon as two people come in contact there’s a hierarchy established and one person has power over the other. You could argue that everything is democratic or communist, because in any system that doesn’t result in everyone killing everyone else, people make agreements with each-other.
The actual definition of anarchy is really based on how it appears and functions. If nobody is functioning as a leader and there’s no obvious hierarchy, it could be described as anarchy.
Yes, other people were confused. That doesn’t mean that you’re not confused.
No, what you answered was “How do Americans feel about being a rogue state?” That’s a completely different question, even though it’s the one most people answered.
The question was whether Americans in general understood and acknowledged that. I would say no, because most Americans don’t follow foreign news sources. People who are getting their news from Fox News, OANN and Newsmax are probably not aware of that. Instead, they probably think the US is even more respected than ever.