I can understand it for his ultra wealthy backers, who are going to making a fortune buying up cheap assets, but I really don't understand the thought process behind working class people supporting him.

Are they seriously expecting all this to lead to high paying manufacturing jobs? They're going to have to either find a workforce willing to work for peanuts or accept goods being dramatically more expensive than they've become accustomed to. That is just economic reality.

From an outside perspective, it almost seems like there's a portion of the US happily marching into some kind of neo-serfdom without fully grasping that they are going to be the serfs in this scenario.

I'll stand by the opinion Marvel should saved Mads to play Doom. I'll keep an open mind for RDJ and I like him as an actor but I can't really picture him as Doom at all.

Mads just has 'it' for the character - the calm, menacing gravitas, a natural air of danger with his screen presence. Even his natural accent would carry well for the character.

Nintendo's greed knows no bounds.

At these price points, if anyone is after a handheld experience then it's very hard to justify it over a Steam Deck.

I understand they do it because they can and people are willing to let them get away with it but there has to be a limit somewhere.

Their components are woefully outdated; their build quality is appalling; their appstore is filled with overpriced shovelware and they are, and always will be, the worst possible option for a multi-platorm title. Any money saved on hardware is lost tenfold on extortionate software.

For me, aside from a handful of exclusive games which they'll still charge full price for a decade later, Nintendo have very little going for themselves beyond brand recognition and nostalgia.

As for the US identity, it's been clear to outside parties for a decades that the US is a nation with two very different faces and the division appears to become even more pronounced in recent years.

By no means do I have any want or desire for it, but perhaps it would be better for America, and by extention the world as a whole, if there were some sort of mutually agreed separation of the states, based on ideological lines.

I think perhaps we're not thinking on the same scale. For the majority of that current generation, they're exactly as they've been programmed to be. That's the point I'm making, it can all change in a generation.

The real issue at play is the diabolical headline.

Riling people up over nonsense, dropping taglines for international audiences to think we're under some kind of police state regime, which is why you hear this sentiment echoed from Americans online sometimes.

It's an unpopular opinion but honestly it's about time the government cracked down on the media. There's a huge disconnect between the producer and the consumer.

The general public for whatever reason still has faith in this sort of content, which is designed to be as sensationalist, outrageous and generate clicks. They've built an entire business model around making the population scared, angry or afraid.

From a historical perspective, it feels very short-sided to be actively encouraging European nations to lean far right politically, massively amp up military capability that's completely independent of the US and declaring expansionist ambitions to be fair game again.

It's like they're forgetting why this 'rules-based order' was established in the first place. Between them, Europe conquered and fucked up most of the world for centuries, all while fighting each other. You could make a strong case that they've been at it for thousands of years, with technology being the only thing that limited their scope.

Does the world really want to risk opening that box again, but this time with a united Europe? In my opinion, it's a mistake to consider European relative passivity as a default state of just 'how things are'.

It was a very deliberate choice to chill out and live in peace, which was to the benefit of vast majority of the the world. There's definitely an argument to be had that they've chilled out too much and perhaps let things slide that they should not have done.

It's almost as if these are overwhelmingly popular policy decisions, despite what Reddit's echo chamber might have you believe.

Based on the fact these right wing lunatics are always guilty of whatever crazy things they accuse their opponents of, I would not be too surprised if Trump and his pals ran pedophile rings and were sacrificing children to harvest blood and adrenochrome.

This is what I'm saying. We're currently still in the AI bubble. Businesses are throwing AI at everything to see what will happens. Once the tech matures and becomes standard, this sort of thing will fall off with any business that values it's brand.

It will certainly make some jobs redundant, however it will create different jobs in other areas. Kind of like the move from a loom to steam-powered machinery, AI has the potential to change the relationship between humans with how we interact with the tasks in front of us.

It is not necessarily a bad thing. People will adapt, as they always have.

Hardly. This keeps being repeated and it's frankly utter nonsense. AI has its uses but anyone who works closely with it will tell you it's nowhere near replacing humans at any kind of scale and businesses are wising up to this now.

Every tech company going is selling an AI solution these days. They're always full of all kinds of promises but what you have to remember is they're selling a product. AI has plenty of limitations that become more apparent the longer you work with it.

What it IS very good at is automating busywork. For best results, you still need a human on the other end to assess, correct and craft what it produces into a quality final product. It's allowing people to do more productive, meaningful work without getting bogged down in the mountains of tedious tasks that facilitate it all.

Sure, I don't doubt there will be some terrible companies who attempt full automation but they will ultimately fail against competitors who are using these tools properly and producing better results.

With all due respect, that is a very US-centric assessment.

Pound for pound, how much more hostile is China on a global level than the US really?

If we were to draw up lists since WW2 of how many foreign governments each has toppled for economic gain, how many countries each has bombed into oblivion, even how they treat their allies...

Democrats or Republicans, it makes no difference. There are many, many countries in the world that would heavily dispute the claim the US is not hostile.

The fear of AI decimating the job market is vastly overblown. Most of it is coming from the people behind the tech blowing smoke up everyone's arse and hyping it far beyond what it's capable of.

I distinctly remember, maybe 10 years ago, Google demoing an AI that could fully vocally engage in conversation in a way almost indistinguishable from a human. We're still nowhere near that.

It's decent as a tool but often hilariously inept left to it's own devices. You can build insanely complex decision trees for bots and they will still go rogue on you over the most basic things.

My general experience has been the people most worried about AI taking over are the ones using it the least. It'll end up just being another tool and knowing how to use and babysit it will be another required skill. Just like when PCs first took over, people just need to adapt.

The whole point of these media shenanigans relies on people not reading articles beyond the rage bait headlines before getting mad.

The longer this goes on for, the more I'm coming around to the idea that maybe the harm caused by a 'free press' outweighs the benefits. We drastically need some type of media reform fit for the post-truth, propaganda driven modern day.

This is something that needs repeating. Ignore all the propaganda and talking points they're spewing out about how weak Europe is, how it can't hope to stand against mighty Russia without US support.

Putin's constant 'red lines' have been ignored for years and he's done nothing about it. He threatens the UK with nukes every other week in the hope it'll make them back off. His most effective weapon is propaganda and if that stops working he has little else.

Bear in mind a European response would have no real designs on Russia and he knows it. If the goal was solely to push them out of Ukraine, Europe could very well achieve that without American help and he knows that too. He would not threaten us so much if he wasn't well aware we could pull it off.

And that's without factoring in Trump's loyalty is like a flag on the wind. The moment the situation starts blowing in the other direction, he'll switch sides in an instant. I dare say a defeat here for Putin might very well also put China's 'limitless friendship' to the test. They're pragmatic above all else.

This is why anything short of total victory is not an option for Putin. If Europe steps in, he'll have failed in his aim to keep them off his borders. If he loses the fight, his persona will be broken and he'll look weak. If that happens, he's done for.

You could perhaps have argued in the past a US presence was a security guarantee but it is absolutely not anymore now that they're working hand in hand with Russia.

There is more than just Ukraine at stake in this conflict and it's not out of the realms of possibility that willing nations come round to the idea of putting boots on the ground. The old order and rules are disappearing quickly.

Putin's boldness is held up on the idea that Europe will not escalate without US support. I would argue, for the objective of reclaiming the lost territory, and pushing Russia back to its own borders, a combined European response supporting Ukraine on the ground could easily accomplish this.

There is still hope for sensible diplomacy but if that fails then we have to be prepared to calm his bluff and go all in. If Putin succeeds here, he won't stop with just Ukraine and we will eventually have to fight elsewhere. Better to do it now while Russia is weakened.

Trump is absolutely not seeking a compromise, rather the destruction of a free, independent Ukraine. His version of 'peace' is Ukraine receives nothing and Russia gets to keep everything they've stolen.

For this privilege, Trump is only asking for huge mineral rights which would cripple Ukraine financially and offering no security guarantees for when Russia inevitably rearms, regroups and returns for the rest of Ukraine.

If you seriously think that sounds like an honest negotiation with good intentions, would you consider the above to be an agreeable compromise if it were your country under threat? Would you still consider the nations willing to stand up for your rights against this farce as warhawks? Those are rhetorical questions, you don't need to answer because the answer is obvious.

If we're being realistic, China's alliance with Russia is a matter of convenience. Their real opponent is the US, so support for Russia is an act of opposition against their rival. The game has now changed and it would come as little surprise to me if China's position did also.

Exactly. The rhetoric coming out of the the US about Europe not spending big on military seems to ignore this was by US design in the first place. The American world order after WW2 wanted Europe calmer and reliant on them to maintain their position as the leader of the free world.

Let's not forget, individually, the major European powers had been a global problem in terms of warfare for centuries. The current passive, restrained, diplomatic approach is a choice we'd all collectively made for the greater good.

A fully united Europe with the gloves off could be a door the Russians come to wish they hadn't knocked on.

It's important that we in the UK highlight, at every opportunity, that Reform is the UK branch of Trump politics.

The disgusting display we witnessed yesterday is what Farage wants to bring to our shores.

I believe we should still pursue diplomatic paths with the US and use whatever sway we have but, domestically, I hope we can stay true to core beliefs of Western democracy and thoroughly reject this poison.

That was before he got the message, loud and clear from other Western leaders, that a President doesn't have to step down and can suspend elections if their country is at war.

Calling it now - he's going to drag the US into forever-wars so he can twist the defense Zelensky was forced into to justify staying President for life.

It speaks volumes about the Tates that their image is so bad that DeSantis felt he had to publicly state this.

Then again, I've not looked too closely into it. Is DeSantis' opposition to Tate because of his toxic platform and sex trafficking history, or because he's Muslim?

It's almost as if there are some people who would prefer to see the UK failing to justify their own experiences and salty outlook.

I won't presume to speak for everyone else's experience but, for me, I'm happily employed and have been approached about two jobs from other companies in the past month. All through the economic doom and gloom narrative, the discussions we've had internally have almost all been about expansion, not reduction.

I also think it's worth mentioning there's an element of imported racial discourse that at least part fuels events like those riots.

By way of shared language, the UK absorbs a lot of American perspectives, language, ideology, etc through the internet. It's unavoidable and often fairly harmless. In some cases, however, they are not directly compatible as our culture and history are quite different.

That's not to say the UK does not have racist incidents. My point is the context is different enough that the US approach to these topics is not entirely well suited to the UK's issues, just as ours is not to theirs.

The biggest surprise for me with this Labour government is how often Starmer has been eating Farage's lunch. The Tories tied themselves in knots and imploded in their attempts to catch up with him and failed to deliver anything.

In the span of months, Starmer has taken action on immigration, now cut the aid budget and increased defense spending. Where do Reform go from here when Labour are already doing the things Reform say they would do? They can push further right but there'll be a limit on how far they can go and remain politically viable.

He's also somehow gained a favorable view from Trump; Farage has seemingly fallen off Trump's radar. And by some work of pure magic, done this while moving to improve relations with China at the same time.

The Chagos deal is about the only thing the right wing press have left to attack him on and, even then, how much does the British electorate really, honestly care about that? Given how well he's playing the game so far, there could very well be much more to that story than meets the eye too. Time will tell.

I've never been a huge fan of Starmer. He had the credentials but didn't come across as a particular savvy political operator. As time goes on, I'm starting to think I and many others severely underestimated him.