It is likely a function of density. India is particularly heavily populated and their cities are very dense.
Suburbia and lower-density neighbourhoods will necessarily reduce the number of chance encounters, and thus possibilities to make friends. In many developed nations the only places to "be social" can often also be places in which you can only participate in through the lens of commercialism (e.g. going to a sporting event, paying to play pool or darts at a bar, etc.). This is often described as the loss of the "third place." It's heavily associated with sprawl and car-centric development, but even without that there's tons of places that don't have nearby public parks or plazas that they can just go and exist in without spending money. The pretext of a place to socialize and hang out changes if you need to spend a significant amount of money to participate.
Another reason could be that having easy access to cheap digital entertainment probably reduces the number of times most people voluntarily leave their house to go be social. I know at least for myself that I can easily hole up in my home and avoid the outside world if I want to. You have to make a conscious effort to decide to go out and do social things, and that can sometimes be very difficult in tandem with my previous point about sprawl. Do I really want to drive somewhere and spend money to be social today or should I just find a new show on Netflix? A hard problem when we structure our own incentives against our desires to make more friends!
It's not in the tech circle news, but this murder happened literally days after Hindenburg Research released a very long article on money laundering and widespread fraud at Block (CashApp's parent company). Apparently the app is widely used to launder drug money.
Not saying that's related, but you would have to investigate that angle in a murder.
Hindenburg has an incredible track record. Every time they release a report, it’s a major news event in the financial world. If they write about your business, you can easily expect the stock to drop 10-25%. Their last report on Adani caused the stock to drop nearly 60%.
Honestly they’re doing the job regulators should be doing.
I've always thought Marc Antony's speech was bullshit - "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones."
It's way more common to ignore/forget/never mention again anything bad someone who died did.
Also the crypto world seems to be getting a bit stabby in various ways, as things come crashing down there may be repercussions. Unlikely in this case, probably. Much more likely to be domestic of some sort.
Significantly less American than Anwar al-Awlaki, the US citizen Obama ordered assassinated. Jamal Khashoggi was a US resident, but never gained citizenship.
Every Confederate killed during the Civil War was a US citizen too (secession is illegal and not recognized). At some point, if people are trying to kill you, you kill them back.
By the end of the war we were the ones marching on them, killing them in their cities, and burning them down.
War is war. The world would be a better, safer place for us if every single al Qaeda member worldwide were dead. I'm glad the US military is trying to get as many of them as possible. The main issue I'm worried about here is collateral damage -- that can cause the actions to be counter-productive.
So if the military decides your rhetoric calling for the extermination of a group of people is too extreme, you're fine with them drone striking you? As what you're doing isn't drastically different to what al-Awlaki did.
>Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone airstrike ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama on October 14, 2011.
>Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki was an eight-year-old American citizen who was killed on January 29, 2017, during the Raid on Yakla, a commando attack ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump
>Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki was an American imam who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government.[7][8] US government officials argued that Awlaki was a key organizer for the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda...
A green card is a residency card; it does not confer citizenship. Lots of Journalists with American citizenship have residency cards of other countries in order to be able to work from those places. It does not make them Japanese, or Korean or Chinese, etc.
> They did murder an American journalist for criticising their rules in his writing
In your quest to bust the myth that they killed an American journalist you are missing the point. The point is that they did murder a journalist. Here I am going to extend this even further: they murdered another human being.
This reminds me of a great exchange in a classic movie: https://www.quotes.net/mquote/9306 The exercise to map this to our discussion is left to the reader.
this is what it means to be a sovereign state - they _can_ do this. And if the subject being murdered is a citizen of the USA and the gov't doesn't respond with something, then they are implicit.
However, if the subject is not a citizen of the USA, then the USA does not have the legal right to respond (other than to talk trash about it).
I'm not saying the murder was just - it isn't. I'm saying that there's no mental gymnastics, and there's little to limited things the US can respond with.
Is the law always correct? Specifically in totalitarian countries? The internet is also a tool for braking the law with unrestricted information. Bitcoin is unrestrained money. All the bitcoin copycats controlled by individuals are scams tho
I don't know what part of the prompt was meaningful and I didn't test different prompts. It seems just telling it exactly what you want it to be seems to work.
I asked it to give me advice on some issues I was having and just went from there.
