Rename it to "Make it Soviet".

"In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment."

I take any claims of absolute neutrality with a huge grain of salt. Besides, he's an unelected bureaucrat. He can only pretend to represent the interests of the people.

Bureaucrats can do more than pretend: they can have a history of actions which reflect their representation of the interests of the people.

I'm glad that at times like these, I switched to Brave browser on all of my platforms (desktop and mobile). I can't recommend it enough.

Having that on a e-bike would be wild.

Should we ever consider broad societal harm, or just focus on individual harm? It's to me just short sighted to only consider the later.

You can see for yourself.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://blog.twi...

I'm not sure that can be applied consistently. Would you say the same about heads of drug cartels or human trafficking rings (not equating these to Kim, as I'm sure you understand)?

I think you should build your argument a little bit more.

I’d say, why not say that also for drug cartels? The only reasonable argument that comes to my mind is that some big cartel head might have local government influence, but that does not apply to Kim and New Zealand, right?

Another possible argument would be that the damage has been done elsewhere. But in the case of the dtug cartel, if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law?

> if there are victims in 20 countries that why would any third party have priority for enforcing their law

That's not really relevant. No one is arguing priority. "Priority" implies there's 20 countries fighting to prosecute someone and we need to resolve it. In this case, it was a cooperation between multiple countries who agreed someone needed to be prosecuted, regardless of which country did it.

The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”, when he is already in a cooperating country that will enforce acceptable local law. And his own country, where he resides, and where the did the purported crimes.

> The point being why should any argument in this line end up with “lets extradite him to the US”

Because New Zealand is willing to and he broke the law in the U.S. as well? Why would there be an argument at all?

You were criticizing someone's argument and brought up two points of your own that don't make sense to me. Drug cartel members DO get extradited.

When is the last time the head of pretty much any drug cartel was extradited to the USA?

A couple months ago: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sinaloa-cartel-leader-n...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead-defendant-long-running-d... maybe not head, but 3 weeks ago.

There's a bunch of these people extradited all the time.

Yep, angry unicorn. If the copilot debacle wasn't reason enough to make people migrate or diversify the code repo efforts with, let's say, GitLab, this should.

It will be interesting to see if they release the tallies by region, on how those number will match with the overall result.

Oh, look, the moment decisions don't go the way I agree with, we throw democracy and institutions out of the window. Who's a "threat to democracy" now?

Good on you!

Not a window, a helicopter.

I’m not saying it should be done, but that’s the reductio ad absurdium this decision leaves us with. The aspiring despot’s toolbox has been converted into a full-blown machine shop.