No, sorry.

From an economic angle, that level of control is hard power, as removing it, or worse, putting behind an opponent, can be as damaging, and coersive

That’s just objectively untrue. It only becomes hard power when they lean on that influence coercively. The implication that it could be taken away is the literal definition of soft power. A direct threat to take it away as leverage would be hard power.

When China builds a port in Djibouti, the implication is that if Djibouti doesn’t conform largely to China’s geopolitical goals in the region the port could be shut down or funding pulled. That’s soft power, even though it carries conditions, because of the ambiguous and uncertain nature of the consequences. China in this example wouldn’t be exercising “hard power” unless they actively threatened to pull all Chinese shipping to and from the port or change the parameters of the loan structure to get the country to fall in line.

They have influence over it, they don’t control it. Elon can’t threaten Sam Altman with a hellfire missile strike over their ongoing lawsuit.

Sorry, no. Sponsoring a ballroom or paying for an inauguration are examples of soft power. Hard power is when you use coercive means to achieve your goals, in a geopolitical sense (where the terms come from) hard power is military action or the threat thereof, or economic sanctions. Funding things, building things and paying for things are examples of soft power. A billionaires version of hard power would be blackmail or a hostile takeover.

I’m not saying it’s not worth the price, just that it’s not a ready made replacement for the average consumer.

“request a quote”

Ya I’m gonna say that’s a $2500+ printer

In the US though he’s absolutely correct. It’s just not a term anyone but MAGAts use. This rule really is only gonna censor the people trying to fear monger, and not any actual “antifa members” because they don’t exist.

Windows Vista wasn’t created with the intention of preventing war, so that makes no sense.

This. The UN isn’t for “doing things”. Its sole purpose is to provide an established avenue for diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement in human history and is critically important especially in tense times like this, for no other reason than enabling interstate dialogue. It isn’t meant to be on anyone’s side as an organization, it’s meant to bring everyone to the table to encourage diplomacy to prevent war.

I’ve got no qualms with killing and eating something, I make an effort to dispatch those animals as quickly and humanely as possible, thus the question.

So does this mean stab the lobsters or don’t stab the lobsters? I was raised on the NE shore and have cooked hundreds of lobsters, I used to do the trick of putting them face down and stroking the spine, that would work ok but they wake up when you move them to the pot. I started stabbing the lobsters a few summers ago after a chef I worked with told me I should be, but I wasn’t convinced it was a lot more humane and it’s not fun if there’s kids around lol.