Dalio's long-term views still seem to revolve around his big cycle theory but more recently he's admitted that China has some big problems to deal with, including the demographics issue: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-100-year-storm-horizon-...
He's not the first guy to talk about this long cycle, great powers wax and wane. He's also right that the US is looking weak by certain metrics, chiefly at the rate US debt is accumulating you have to wonder how much longer the dollar can remain the world's reserve currency. But what he didn't talk about in the book and is now being forced to admit is that China's problems are at least as big as America's (if you believe that demography is destiny, China is going to lose in the long game for sure). It's entirely possible for countries to challenge even a weakened hegemon and lose, happens all the time, we may be seeing it happen now.
I don't know why you think they have, but they haven't. You're mistaken. You've noticed wrong.
Maybe you came across a claim about it on social media, but it's been entirely debunked:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/big-mac-since-1980/
And Whoppers have nothing to do with anything here. I don't know why you're comparing the two -- the Whopper is a single-patty quarter pounder, and it compares to the McD's quarter pounder. Not the Big Mac with its double patties and extra bread.
It’s the reality of countering an air-sea superpower as a country supplied by sea. We do a tonne of long-range logistics readiness exercises China doesn’t. Because they don’t need to.
There is no inherent virtue in stockpiling. An attritive war is all about production anyway, not starting stock. Our weakness is in low production rates of all manner of materiel, not a lack of stockpiles.
Dead Comment
It always feels like a morality race to the bottom. Clearly i'm a pessimist here, but it's obvious in my pessimistic mindset. Do you have a more positive outlook perhaps?
But there is an entire chain of responsibility here. The hospital IT department that chose to use a computer instead of dumber technologies. The IT department that chose to run Windows. The security team that chose to purchase CrowdStrike's software, possibly without vetting them.
If a software's license has clear terms stating that there is no warranty, and the buyer buys it anyway, why shouldn't this be a caveat emptor situation? If they didn't like it, they could negotiate indemnity clauses, go to a competitor, or not use the software at all.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that CrowdStrike did a shitty thing. But maybe they already disclosed that in their license agreement, and the purchasers decided to overlook that to their own peril. After all, running kernel-mode software is equivalent to handing over the keys to your computers. Maybe negotiating/selling software with liability clauses should be more normalized?