You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.
"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.
The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.
You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.
In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change might possibly persuade the current government that absolute authoritatian control is not as popular as Trump thinks.
That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.
It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.
It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding bodies the world over. These should direct funding for grant proposals not on political whim or popularity but on the basis of what is actually needed. Again, though, it does get sabotaged a fair bit.
Exactly how you'd mitigate this is unclear, many governments have - after all - the leading talent in manipulation, corruption, and kickbacks. But presumably, strategies can be devised to weaken political influence.
You want to sign an NDA to stop your business secrets from getting out? Fine.
But that should not let you refuse to talk to the law.
Imagine a crook that says, "I am sorry, but my NDA with the Cartel prevents me from revealing how we get the Cocaine here."
That is NOT any different from a car repair business saying "I am sorry, but my NDA with TESLA prevents me from talking about the safety issues with their breaks.
Or a cop saying his NDA prevents him from revealing how he suspected the criminal.
No I am saying that no single database should exist for all of their customers.
Amazon does not need to store passwords in the same database they store the sales information in. One database could contain just their encrypted passwords and the emails.
Another could store customers names and addresses.
And each database could be under the control of a different director who gets to maintain their security in a different manner.
Also, Amazon has different businesses. No need for the kindle unlimited accounts to be in the same database as the music accounts. No need for the Whole Foods to be in the same database as the Amazon Fresh. No need for Amazon Medical to be in the same etc. etc. etc.
What is going on is that the businesses are doing things for their own convenience that endanger their customers. NO!
You want to run a business with a million customers? Fine - more power for you. But you do NOT get to run this massive industry in a way that saves you a ton of money but also puts all your customer's privacy in danger.
Just as a small business is required to take minimal steps to ensure the safety of their customer data, you - being a huge business - is required to take HUGE steps to ensure the safety of customer data.
You do not get to use your economies of scale to endanger your customers data.
It hasn't been proven in court, but there's been more solid evidence presented than there was against Cosby.
No fan of Darth Cheeto, but that is simply not true. Cosby was deposed in a civil suit and admitted in his testimony to drugging women so he could have sex with them.
Who, BTW, totally also did all that shit
He totally did (see above). It is, in fact, why he is not currently in prison because, despite the DA granting him immunity for said testimony to remove his 5th amendment protections, that deposition was used against him in his criminal trial and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated his conviction as a result.
Yes but have you considered that without this system poor people won't be able to get mcdonalds delivered to their door?
So it's a plan with no drawbacks?
I do recognize that this is an issue for the disabled, but it's unsustainable for them as well, and I reject temporary solutions that aren't backed up by permanent ones. If the plan is only to kick the can and wish for a miracle, it's a bad plan.
ICEs still have a 23 to 1 energy density than Li
That's not even wrong, it's just not how anything works. You're comparing a motor to an energy storage mechanism and also ignoring efficiency at the same time.
most of the new car buyers cannot calculate TCO and they care only about purchase price.
Monthly payments matter. Also when people are poor and can't afford big payments and the vehicles are very expensive then they wind up spending a lot in interest. TCO matters but so does monthly cost.
I think the USA & EU should start developing hybrids
They have existed for decades. What did you actually mean to say?
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
