The problem for Hasbro is that, right now, the company doesn’t have that much in non WotC moneymakers and hasn’t had it for years. There have been attempts by activist investors to push for having WotC demerged from Hasbro so WotC isn’t subsidizing the rest of Hasbro. The across-the-board cuts were Hasbro leadership trying to placate investors, but they cut muscle and bone from WotC for some reason instead.

Part of the reason why I’m arguing against economic terms is because it doesn’t really give context into the power dynamics in how an instance is run. At the core of most instances on Lemmy, a head admin dictates the rules of their instance and it is take it or leave it for everyone else that wants to participate.

Think of it like this, if the head admin wanted to make a decision against all other admins and mods, what would happen? Likely, which has happened previously to other instances on Lemmy, the head admin wins out and everyone else either conforms or has to leave. Labor doesn’t become ownership.

Unless an instance has a corporate structure which distributes power, it is an autocracy by definition.

C:S had a lot of similarities to the Sim City that was released as its contemporary.

And we’ll use the remains of your planet to build a giant planet killing machine.

You can see design evolution. It wouldn’t be too hard to describe C:S as Sim City 5.

And Cities: Skylines succeeded because EA shit the bed with SimCity.

Some instances let others work as mods, or even with some admin privileges. However, at the end of the day, each instance is beholden to the head admin unless they were set up differently. The only instance I can think of with an organizational structure beyond autocracy is beehaw.

You’re also trying to insert economic descriptions to a political system without economics.

Autocratic city-states.

No.

Three things.

1. The economic transfers to MENA countries to detain migrants isn’t that large. In comparison, “promote human rights and rule of law” is an equivalent to nation building, which will require a much higher price tag.

2. Do MENA countries even want it and will it turn out how we expect it? Lybia has devolved into two civil wars after the removal of Gaddafi. Egypt reversed its Arab Spring moment as the Muslim Brotherhood was writing a constitution to make Egypt a one party state. These countries may not want government level intervention.

3. Part of the reason for EU expansion was to make less developed eastern countries more developed via trade. That process is still ongoing. I doubt these countries are going to want EU development funds to leave the union or for trade to shift to countries with far lower labor costs.

From what I’ve seen, especially since COVID, is that society has changed beyond their understanding and now a lot of things are strange and scary. Worse, a lot of the skills they should have learned to understand the present day weren’t learned for various reasons, so getting over the hump of understanding is now a lot higher than previous.

Anger is a common reaction to fear and confusion.

There is astroturfing, but there is also a lot of propaganda and story curation around the protests.

I think it is just a different way that tourism is handled.

A lot of tourism within the USA is handled in specific tourism districts/cities. In cases where tourism is big in cities not built for tourism like New York and Philadelphia, there are still districts in the city that locals gave up in exchange for having other districts that aren’t as deluged by tourism.

In Europe, the tourism district is usually the most important historically and culturally.

The EU has a bearbones wealth transfer development mechanism within the EU. Why would it pay for a far more expensive system to develop parts of the world outside the EU?

Even a NAFTA like system would be very unpopular as it would shift a lot of industry and jobs outside the EU.

And DC was barricading the shit out of the parade route the day before, almost expecting a riot to occur.

Two reasons:

First, both Koreas accept that there are two different countries through various political actions. That equivalent doesn’t exist for the Chinas; both nations officially don’t recognize each other’s legitimacy and don’t treat each other as independent nations.

Second, the UN Veto only goes to one country. The USA kept the PRC from being declared the legitimate Chinese government. So, the world is used to viewing the issue of one China, it continues to do so.

Yes

You also had people trying to get around bans by creating new accounts, since new accounts are free. A way to prevent brigading was to institute a minimum age and karma score to participate.

Eh. When I do markups at work, I still do them by hand. I find myself more critical with a pen instead of a mouse.

At a certain point, I’m voting for the person who most likely aligns with my views. Democrats may have 50%, but Republicans have 0%.