All she had to do was trick him into saying ‘Free Palestine’ and Columbia not only would have expelled him but they would also ensure he never got a job in any top firm

A great British patriot.

Because they were NPCs

Essentially, she called for non government interference in the affairs of big business and the rich. She believed that the wealthy were drivers of a nations progress and they shouldn’t be harassed by such things like fair taxation or employment rights. As she was totally against the idea of a welfare state and social care (why should rich people contribute to looking after the disadvantaged in society?), her view was f**k the poor. It’s the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. Darwin’s law etc. If all this sounds familiar today, it’s because in the seventies, students of her beliefs went on to hold senior positions in the Reagan administration during which capitalism went into full malignant mode. Today, the second generation of her followers include neo-cons, the billionaire class, liberal politicians, centrist politicians (which form the bulk of the ‘democratic’ West), and the far right. All continue to promote her beliefs and tell the poor that socialism or immigration is to blame for their problems.

They concluded it was worthless? Sure. Sure they did 😉😉

Awful woman who’s malignant influence over the neo-cons and right wing politicians across the world would lead to pain and suffering for millions

Something something unintended consequences

Toms hardware would likely have said the same thing about early EV cars from China about 5 years ago

Good lord!!

Sadly true. All the tech giants either support genocide, spy on innocent citizens or socialise with billionaire paedophiles. In most cases, it’s all three things

That would be a good time to leave and work for a company that does no evil

The West engaged in genocide, polluting the planet, their billionaires driving humanity to despair in their greed. The Guardian: Should we be worried about china’s dancing robots?

It was never about who owned it or privacy concerns. It was always about censorship and controlling what young Americans could see