I was initially siding with Israel as they were hit first, but their response has made me rethink things.

To generalize this out to other wars and conflicts, even regular old arguments, there are almost always pre-existing conditions and tensions leading up to the first major attack. Even things like WWI, where the catalyst was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But there is quite obviously more to the atmosphere, national ambitions, etc. etc. that make it so that the separatists wanted to assassinate him, and make it so that Austria-Hungary wanted to invade Serbia and used this as an excuse. A war would have happened anyway, no matter who attacked first.

I’ll call for their manager and attack the manager specifically. Is there a term for that yet?

Security is a cat and mouse game. There’s always a way to steal from anyone, especially a convenience-oriented business.

The best deal is always free. So, I’d rather inconvenience the conglomerate haute-booj than the petit-booj, even if it’s only a few dollars.

Huh, I’ll have to look for a mute button, thanks for the hint. Mine keeps yelling at me to finish unloading then churns out a nonsense marketing phrase. Utterly annoying.

I’d heard the Michelin story repeated a couple of times by a friend, and it sort of checks out. The Michelin Guide was originally more a general guide for French motorists in 1900, to increase said demand for driving and therefore their tires, although when the restaurant section became more popular, they started hiring anonymous reviewers in the 20s and then eventually awarding stars about 30 years after the initial publication.

1 star : “A very good restaurant in its category” (Une très bonne table dans sa catégorie) 2 stars : “Excellent cooking, worth a detour” (Table excellente, mérite un détour) 3 stars : “Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey” (Une des meilleures tables, vaut le voyage)

So it’s not as if it was a masterminded plan, a decent marketing tool just sort of evolved into a restaurant reviewing guide.

Parts of it is historical, although it shouldn’t be understated that a lot of it was political (in the sense of powerful business interests influencing policy to advance their economic interest) and poor urban planning forcing that sprawl. As the video mentions, public transit like trains and streetcars necessarily predated the advent of the mass produced automobile around 1930, a long time after the initial sprawling. Almost all cities had them, they were removed and not replaced.

What I mean by this is that even with the open colonial sprawl, the current state of things was avoidable and, although increasingly difficult, can be undone and improved.

pls no more punchlines in the title!

The size of the country/states isn’t really the issue, right? You can cross Europe via train pretty easily, 4hrs London to Amsterdam, longer over land than Dallas to San Antonio for example, but I’d assume a normal life doesn’t regularly involve driving all around the state. Most of daily life is just within a city or region, the size of the country is irrelevant there.

There absolutely are major factors that basically force North Americans into cars, I agree, but I don’t think size is an excuse for those factors.

edit: This video talks about the ‘North America is too big’ argument in detail, but fair warning, the creator is a bit annoyed and crass at the start and talking about comments they get. You can skip to 2:30 to jump over it.