By that measure shouldn't Disney be considered a Tech company too? Or I guess banks and insurance companies.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but maybe the article (at least the small part I can read with no paywall) is on to something, Companies that sell access to technology or rely on technology to sell something else (he does give the example of e-commerce) should not be "Tech" companies.
The part I didn't get to is where the author draws the line to tell what companies ARE Tech.
I guess OpenAI or Google would qualify. They sell services but they are services they invented and made, with considerable researxh and investment. But what about Amazon or Netflix?
With Grok looking more and more like the only one working for Musk with enough (digital) balls to stand up to his boss, that might be better than the alternative of "Big Balls" and the rest of the Digital Oblivous Goons of Elon
One of the few areas where representation is fair is assholery. There are real assholes from all genders, ethnicity and religious backgrounds.
You can be non-white, non-binary, non-wasp and still be an asshole. And other assholes will accept you, if it helps shield their evil agenda from the most obvious accusations.
And guess what political side has learned to leverage that fact? I'll give you a few hints. Neonazi AfD in Germany has a lesbian leader with a Sri Lankan partner, the italian far right party (staunch defender of family values) has a leader who's a never married single mom (and now she's Italy's prime minister), then you already mentioned Trump and Vance.
Don't get me wrong, Usha Vance, Melania Trump, Giorgia Meloni, Alice Weidel aren't being exploited. They are all formidable persons who got to the top by out-assholing everyone else on their side and by actively banking on their "non traditional" status to emerge in ultra-conservative environments.
So they don't need to rationalize anything. It's all already quite rational and by design.
"Nasty, failing Norway, they should just hand over Greenland. That Helsinki is a horrible place, we have so many cleaner and better looking places here in the US!"
Trump's thing are 1:1 negotiations, like with Putin. He's all about making a deal personally and people gushing over how great of a deal he made. Unfortunately he's not nearly as good as he thinks he is.
Tariffs are meant as his opening power move, like the used car salesman's firm handshake. Same (I hope...) as the fuckery on Canada or Greenland. They are the "I am strong and I want something, let's sit and negotiate".
Problem is that the used car salesman only has two outcomes: customer buys the clunker or customer walks away. But it rarely happens that "customer is strong-armed into buying the clunker but customer is fire-fighter and next time will let the car dealership burn down".
I'm in another country and not speaking about Indians in particular, but my family have been immigrants.
One thing I observed is that immigrants tend to have a stronger anti-immigration stance than other demographics.
I think it's one part shame. You worked hard and now you feel superior to the "fresh off the boat" person you once were and (by extension) to all those new immigrants.
One part it's that inside, we all have these shitty feelings toward other people but, as immigrants ourselves, we feel legitimised to express them openly because hey, that can't be racist if you're talking of your own ethnicity, right?
And then of course,in many places immigrants tend to be pigeonholed into specific types of jobs, so more immigrants not from your family = more competition. But that is not for the Usha Vance types who made it close to the top.
I see that dynamic being actively exploited for politics everywhere. The lesbian leader of the neonazi AfD in Germany, for instance. "I can't be racist, I have an Indian wife" is just not true. You can and the Indian wife can be too.
what is the point where having continued drills becomes just ridiculous? What is it that they are actually testing at this point?