Because that’s what the news audience is interested in: the impact of the latest war on Amazon data centers. Which can be rebuilt and are owned by people with more than enough resources to do so endlessly.
publicizing news about the consequences of war, no matter the scale, incentivizes those involved to push for an end to conflict. Investors don’t like it when companies have to spend money to rebuild things
Major damage to US corporate infrastructure seems more likely to have a real impact on the length of the war. Heart wrenching stories about humanitarian crises don’t seem to have that sort of impact. Even if they would, there are too many of these stories to draw sustained public interest in any single event or group of related events. Corporate involvement at least has a board who has to try to take action on behalf of investors. It wouldn’t be a romantic end, but it might be better than nothing.
Because that’s what the news audience is interested in: the impact of the latest war on Amazon data centers. Which can be rebuilt and are owned by people with more than enough resources to do so endlessly.
Major damage to US corporate infrastructure seems more likely to have a real impact on the length of the war. Heart wrenching stories about humanitarian crises don’t seem to have that sort of impact. Even if they would, there are too many of these stories to draw sustained public interest in any single event or group of related events. Corporate involvement at least has a board who has to try to take action on behalf of investors. It wouldn’t be a romantic end, but it might be better than nothing.
Nah. The comments that say “duh, we already knew that.” And “borrrring” are always right.
(I agree with the otter)
And yet I’m sure they’ll somehow find a way to make the little guy pay for the repairs