tal

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the damages amount to $7.5 billion, the single biggest loss in a year since Cuba began issuing these reports.

So, the US embargo was imposed in response to Cuban seizure of assets owned by US individuals and companies in Cuba at the time of the revolution, with the US requiring compensation as a precondition to end the embargo.

You've got inflation and interest on that too, so it does add up. But even so, Cuba has probably lost quite a bit more from the sanctions than it would have by just paying the US companies and individuals for the stuff it nationalized.

kagis

This is from 2005, so there have been another 20 years of inflation and interest on top of that, but it gives an idea as to the scale of what's involved (I just grabbed this source, even though it's older, because I wanted someone who had worked interest into the claims; a lot of sources only adjust for inflation):

https://ascecubadatabase.org/asce_proceedings/taxation-of-cuban-confiscated-assets-after-property-claims-settlements-issues-for-taxpayers-and-the-u-s-government/

From 1959 onward, the Cuban revolutionary government confiscated assets such as homes, businesses, farms, factories, and personal property belonging to U.S. taxpayers and others. This was the largest seizure of U.S. property in history, greater than the value of American assets taken by all other Communist governments combined. Although the Castro regime promised compensation for confiscated properties, most takings were uncompensated.

Claims for confiscated assets remain one of the most contentious issues between the United States and Cuba. A statutory condition for normalizing relations with a post-Castro Cuban government is whether the regime has taken “appropriate steps to return to United States citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban government from such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959 or to provide equitable compensation to such citizens and entities for such property.” Nonetheless, normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations is inevitable, and U.S. claimants will receive settlements in the form of recovery of their properties or compensation. The tax implications of such settlements are substantial, as current estimates of the total value of U.S. certified claims, including 46 years of accumulated interest, range from $6.4 billion to $20.1 billion.

The US has a pretty strong incentive to keep the sanctions in place until compensation is paid, above-and-beyond the Cuban situation, because it doesn't want countries around the world to say "oh, let's just seize this asset owned by some American; free stuff". If someone's thinking about that, the US can point at Cuba and credibly say "you might take it, but the cost will exceed your benefit".

Fast‑forward 20 years and battery technology has improved dramatically; EVs are affordable.

I think that that depends on one's finances. They are certainly more affordable than they were in the past. They also cost rather more than a comparable ICE vehicle.

It’s not just a lack of buyers

I think that lack of demand at present price points is very much the dominant factor. In order to transition soon

remember that it takes a long time for a car to "age out"

one would have to be selling a high proportion of BEVs and one would want the proportion sold to be rising. From last year:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-car-sales-3-year-low-august-ev-sales-down-439-acea-says-2024-09-19/

EU car sales at 3-year low in August, EV sales plunge 44%

Sept 19 (Reuters) - New car sales in the European Union fell 18.3% in August to their lowest in three years, dragged down by double-digit losses in major markets Germany, France and Italy and sliding electric vehicle (EV) sales, auto industry body data showed on Thursday.

You can assess that there are negative externalities associated with ICE vehicles, maybe, and tax them further. Or subsidize EVs, if you feel that there are positive externalities associated with the transition. But at current prices, buyers are not purchasing EVs in the kind of numbers required for the industry to transition in the near future.

https://www.theverge.com/news/802486/aws-outage-alexa-fortnite-snapchat-offline

These normally are the devices that provide USB-C (from wall power).

No dispute there.

Another option might be to have a "data-only adapter".

There are some security reasons you might not want to do that. If you're using an untrusted USB power supply

say, an airport charging station

using a power-only cord avoids any potential attack vector from the charger.

DC power supplies where the device is a "brick" that plugs directly into the AC outlet without a cord between the outlet and the "brick".

EDIT: example:

It would contrast with a power supply that does have such a cord, like this:

Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I expect that also effectively eliminates a lower age for other states, as long as someone is willing to establish residency in Tennessee long enough to get married there before moving. Any marriage established in Tennessee must be honored by the other states.

Some US states do permit marriage at a younger age than normal if you get some additional sign-off from parents or a judge or something, IIRC.

kagis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States

It looks like California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Mississippi also have no hard minimum, so we already should be at a hard minimum of zero years old, as long as you jump through the other hoops.

California: With parental consent and judicial approval, a person can marry under the age of eighteen but the partners and the minor's parents have to meet with court officials who must rule out abuse or coercion. There is a 30-day waiting period for minors unless they are seventeen and have graduated high school or one of the partners is pregnant.[47][48]

New Mexico: With parental consent, a person can marry at 16.[71] A 16 or 17 year old teen can marry with the written consent of each living parent of the minor.[72] A person under 16 can marry with judicial approval and parental consent or if pregnant, or by order of a children's or family division of district court.[49]

Oklahoma: With parental consent, a person can marry at 16. A person under 16 may marry if authorized by the court.[42][43]

Mississippi: With parental consent, males can marry at 17 and females at 15. Boys below 17 and girls below 15 can marry with judicial approval and parental consent.[49][43][66]

I also don't know whether it'd be constitutional for another state to prohibit sex between someone and their legal spouse. If I had to make a guess, I'd say no, but not sure. Maybe the right to privacy in Lawrence v. Texas applies.

EDIT: At least in Arizona criminal code, to grab the first state using the term I searched for, it looks like being married to someone is a defense against statutory rape charges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States

The age of consent in Arizona is 18. However, there exist in the legislation defenses to prosecution if the defendant is close-in-age to the minor or a spouse of the minor. Note: these are not close-in-age exceptions but defenses in court. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1405(A)

D. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse (legally married AND cohabiting) of the other person at the time of commission of the act ...

It's probably a coordinated strategy. Cheung also said it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Cheung

Cheung served as the White House assistant communications director and later the director of strategic response in Trump's first presidency.

In November 2024, Trump named Cheung as his White House communications director.

Cheung employs a combative style mirroring Donald Trump's own approach to the media.[24][25] The Atlantic described Cheung as having "relentless aggression" that "helps quench the base's thirst for owning the libs."[25] Stephanie Grisham, who worked with Cheung in the White House, told NOTUS that he excelled at "pithy statements that can offend people quickly, which is exactly what Trumpworld likes."[26] In contrast to his predecessors, Cheung's social media posts are often profanity-laden and attack Trump's adversaries.[25] Cheung has referred to various political adversaries and reporters through terms such as "cuck," "dumbass," "dick," and "fucking stupid." He described James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as "one of the dumbest motherfuckers in human history,"[24] Florida governor Ron DeSantis as a "desperate eunuch",[27] and California governor Gavin Newsom as "a mongoloid who barely registers half a brain cell."[28] According to The New Yorker's Clare Malone, Cheung's abrasive tone is not present in his direct and private communications with reporters.[29]

The last sentence there demonstrating that it's a character he plays for the public.

EDIT: If that sounds strange, I remember an interview some years back with an EU senior translator where the question came up of why Brussels didn't codify an "EU English". His answer was that that was a very intentional decision, to avoid having language that diverged from what was in general use, so as not to come off as being decoupled from the public, some sort of disconnected elite.

Now imagine that you're doing that and cranking it up to 11 to try to demonstrate that you're like someone that you want voting for you. A lot of politics is just saying things that people agree with and acting like them to convince them that you're aligned with them. Trump's political goal is to get and keep white blue-collar voters voting Republican, not Democratic.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wtf-donald-trump-politics-f-151806801.html

Donald Trump drops the F-bomb: Is the presidential profanity really that shocking?

Plus, swearing is normalised for what is referred to as “blue collar” work sectors – a key demographic when it comes to votes. So, dropping a few f-shaped transgressives into speeches could be considered as judicious.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/27/democrats-anger-swearing

Democrats race to embrace swearing and angry comebacks – but will it work?

Democrats’ wider embrace of swearing, trolling and scorched-earth comebacks is part of a broader mission to sound more like “normal people” and less like a party of poll-tested talking points and white papers. From campaign rallies to TikTok vent seshes, the characteristically buttoned-up Democrats are taking more risks – and punching back harder at Trump and his administration.

The bigger challenge, Shenker-Osorio notes, is that Democrats aren’t just competing for eyeballs with Republicans — they’re up against an algorithm that prizes outrage and emotion, whether it’s Maga memes or Taylor and Travis engagement headlines.

That was just the Pentagon that they walked away from, not the White House. And OAN was the one entity that did agree to the Pentagon rules.

So who gets to be the new Duke of York? Does it go back to the monarchy or Parliament or whatever for reassignment, or simply enter some sort of succession system?

Do the people of York just have to go without a lord?

EDIT: Apparently his daughters can't inherit it via succession:

https://blog.lineofsuccession.co.uk/p/why-the-dukedom-of-york-is-rarely-inherited-tradition-circumstance-and-royal-evolution

Why the Dukedom of York Is Rarely Inherited: Tradition, Circumstance and Royal Evolution

The Dukedom of York is among the most prestigious titles in British royal history, yet it has seldom passed from father to son in the manner of other hereditary peerages. This recurring disappearance has fueled the misconception that the title cannot be inherited. In fact, the Dukedom is fully legal and hereditary—its unusual track record stems from repeated lack of male heirs or holders ascending the throne.

• Legal Inheritance Applies: The title is created with the standard remainder to “heirs male of the body lawfully begotten.” There is no gender flexibility, and daughters cannot inherit.

• Repeated Childlessness Among Dukes: Many holders died without legitimate male issue. For example, none of the eighteenth-century York and Albany dukes lived to father sons, and Prince Andrew’s daughters cannot inherit under current rules.

EDIT2: It sounds like in effect, he stays the Duke of York and just doesn't advertise the fact:

https://www.eonline.com/news/1423998/prince-andrew-royal-titles-who-is-new-duke-of-york

However, a royal expert explained that the moniker isn't immediately bestowed upon someone else.

“It’s possible that in the future someone may be granted Andrew’s now former titles,” Sharon Carpenter exclusively told E! News. “But under current rules, a dukedom follows male-line succession. Andrew doesn’t have a son and it won’t be passed to his daughters.”

She added, “It would likely revert to the Crown when he dies and at that point the monarch could regrant the title to someone else.”

Sharon also noted that while the former Duke of York “will stop using that title and others in any official capacity,” the move is actually “largely symbolic” for now. 

“Removing his dukedom officially would legally require an act of Parliament and would be more complex than this immediate action,” she continued. “For Andrew to be legally stripped of his dukedom before his death, it would require statutory action—a vote by Parliament.”

The only interesting people on there are trans furries

Somewhere, some trans non-furries and furry non-trans users looked miffed.