my_hat_stinks

Driving dangerously is generally illegal everywhere else. As someone not in the US, the first time I heard that ridiculous law exists I thought it was a joke. Especially when I found out it was just a scheme to save fuel at the expense of every other road user and especially pedestrians. Insanity.

You're upset that people aren't risking lives to save you a few seconds. You're not exactly the good guy here.

The vast majority of people do speak English in some form, but England isn't exclusively English either. Nearly 1 in 10 people resident in England and Wales didn't list English or Welsh as their main language in a 2021 census.

Depending on how you count you can get 12 or more indigenous languages in the UK, at least 7 of which are commonly recognised (English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, Scots Gealic, Cornish, BSL). Scotland has 4 official languages, Wales has 2, Northern Ireland's official language is Irish and notably not English, and England has no official language. Then there's the non-indigenous languages like Polish and Punjabi, there's enough speakers using those are their main language to be notable.

No, you're not. It's square packing, this is the optimal arrangement of 17 squares inside another square as far as we're currently aware with a side length of 4.6756 inner squares. You cannot fit 5 squares in the space of 4.7 squares of the same size.

It's also a well-known meme and this is a science meme community.

You can't fit 25 squares of the same size in that space. If you check the top row there's 4 squares and space for slightly less than one more square, you can't fit a 5x5 grid there unless you have smaller squares or a bigger waffle

No, that's just the objectionable part because that's the part pretending billionaires are responsible for everything good.

Easy; don't give credit to billionaires for things they've only made worse. I'm not sure why you need my help to not spread misinformation?

No, I'm arguing against direct quotes from you. Unless you yourself are a strawman.

Post about it on the internet built upon tech enabled by the said class

Built by academics to share research, expanded by hobbyists and enthusiasts, and taken over by megacorps. Not "enabled" by billionaires.

, from devices sold to us by the said class

Technically true, but only in that billionaires own the workers.

, in our homes with comforts the existence of which wouldn’t be possible without the said class.

Untrue. People can live in comfort without the existence of billionaires.

Then go to work using infrastructure and means we wouldn’t have without the said class,

Untrue. This is what your taxes pay for. Transit infrastructure exists without billionaires. Even in the US, notoriously a horrible place to travel, public transit infrastructure was good until billionaires lobbied against good infrastructure so they could sell more cars. Car infrastructure costs you more than public transit.

likely doing work we wouldn’t have without the said class.

Possibly true in very specific cases where your work provides value only to billionaires. If your work provides value in any other way (eg providing services or goods), this is likely not true.

Perhaps go buy some food the likes of which we couldn’t dream of having access to without the said class.

I am fully certain you don't really believe good food only exists because of billionaires. Has there ever been a civilization of any kind which hasn't had chefs of some description?

Maybe indulge in a hobby - a leisurely distraction, the kind that only exists because the said class engineered a world where you have time and resources to waste on frivolity, while they decide what those resources are.

Hobbies have always existed. You have time and resources to spare because of unions, not billionaires.

You credited all of these things to billionaires. None of these things exist because of billionaires.

There is no paradox. Thing exists. Billionaire takes over thing. Billionaire ruins thing. Billionaire did not cause thing to exist.

You said these things "wouldn't be possible" and "wouldn't exist" without billionaires. This is objectively untrue. Without billionaires these things would be significantly better. I specifically pointed out your mention of infrastructure because that one's so blatantly obvious unless you've only ever experienced car-centric infrastructure.

Are you not aware of how, for example, car lobbies destroyed public infrastructure in an attempt to make everything car dependant to sell more cars? Claiming any of these things only exist because of billionaires is absurd. They take over and destroy.

I think the issue you're having is that you're treating them as categories and subcategories, like most things it's never that clean. It makes much more sense if you treat them as unordered tags. Arcade isn't a subcategory of tennis.

Say for instance you had a multiplayer racing simulator game, you could categorise that as multiplayer > racing > sim, but if you have a similar singleplayer game you have single player > racing > sim so clearly those aren't just subcategories of single/multiplayer.
You could try sim > racing > multiplayer, but what about your city building sims? Now it's your middle category that didn't work right.

If they're independent tags sim, racing, multiplayer you can change any one of them independently. If any one tag changes that changes how the game is played.

Yes, but only if they've moved in together

The 50s were 70 years ago, things that were new and interesting then are not new and interesting now. It's unremarkable to you because you have 70 years of people building on top of it.