You can disagree with Maduro and his autocratic actions without supporting sanctions that mostly harm the civilian population.
You can disagree with Maduro and his autocratic actions without supporting sanctions that mostly harm the civilian population.
the primary motivation behind this decision was. Obviously it wasn’t building public housing
That doesn’t mean the intent behind the CCP policy isn’t good, well intentioned, or positive
Can you see how I’m confused, do you think the primary intent is for public housing, or for some political drama?
It could be some political drama, we’ll never know what goes on in the HK city council, but if you read the article you’ll see this site wasn’t selected so much as it’s lease was up and the city would be taking back control of it and they needed to do something with it. Yeah some high official could’ve been waiting for the course to come back into city hands so they could build public housing over it and snub a rival, but I think it’s far more likely that the property fell into the cities hands and they decided to turn it into affordable housing because that’s what the city needs, no sinister or alterior motive is needed.
the CCP can’t possibly do something in the interests of the people, their must be something dastardly behind this.
Your just as bad as the tankies who think u.s. aid is just a CIA front, or the Republicans who think welfare is just Democrats keeping black people poor and dependent.
The u.s government and CCP aren’t just full of villains trying to oppress people, both have the capacity for empathy and compassion and do exercise it often.
degeneration might be the ONLY way to prevent Faceboom
So we should just start posting furry porn to try and scare them off?
then they’ll find some sort of technical excuse and pull the plug on ActivityPub support
How do they do this without running a foul of regulators? People are already mad at meta and want to break them up for having instagram and Facebook, if they add the last big social media platform every politician right and left will be lining up to take them down. There’s a reason they never bought twitter despite being able to 10x over. Combine that with new EU interoperability laws and there’s no way meta could get away with that.
Washington stayed with his troops but kept behind the lines. Western Leaders mostly stopped leading from the front after Gustavas Adolphus got killed doing so.
The platform never really took off. It was a niche messaging platform before Facebook and Google and went back to being one after they left. I have yet to see any evidence that Google or Facebook helped or hurt xmpp, just speculation and anger that it didn’t take off.
To all the people wondering about metas intentions in this it’s not the big bad corporation taking down the upstart competition. All the people saying it’s EEE can’t show any sign metas doing this or even wants to because the strategy doesn’t work, any time a company does it it either doesn’t take off or they get brought up on anti-trust laws. Show me a standard that was destroyed by EEE and I’ll show you a standard that never took off in the first place. All the usual examples given, email, java, html, remain open standards to this day.
The truth is the fediverse isn’t competition to meta, it’s a fraction of the size and is populated by users who would never use meta services in the first place. They can pretend it’s a competitor though. If twitter does actually collapse and people switch to threads meta will face anti-trust suits for owning the three largest social media platforms. If they add activity pub support though they can point to the fediverse and say it’s competition, even if it’s only 1 % of the platform. They also have to deal with EU interoperability laws that might start getting enforced.
TL;DR this is about compliance for meta, not conquest.
Western nations give into terrorist demands going back to the French revolution. Some of those demands were for the freedom of speech that is being trampled on here or other rights and protections we hold dear. For recent examples look at the troubles or even that guy who shot shinzo abe and got the moonies out of Japan.
The focus shouldn’t just be on the means for political change, though the means can be criticized, but the political change itself. Banning book burnings in this case is an afront to free speech and should not be implemented.
It does, it just favors the dominant ethno-religous complex. Much of the western proffesional dress code has basis in christian ideals of modesty. These cultural signifiers don’t occur to us though as they’re so normalized. If you came to work dressed like Angela from the office you wouldn’t be cited because the dress code was written with that attire in mind and people view it as normal. You’ll be cited if you violate those ideas of modesty, eg. Showing midriff, or having different views on modesty, eg. A head scarf.
If you want to say it’s completely neutral you’ll have to exorcise all christian biases and assumptions from western culture, which they dont seem to be doing here.
It’s for rental scooters, not all scooters. My guess is two reasons:
The sticking point for diplomacy is not the annexed lands but the right to return. Arafat would’ve accepted most of the border changes, except the ones in east Jerusalem, and maybe even Hamas would. But Israel will not accept a deal with the right to return, as it would change the demographics so much as to make Jewish democracy nearly impossible. Palestinians won’t accept a deal without it as so many are still cramped in refugee camps looking to return. Combine that with the fact that Israel has almost all the power and therefore no reason to negotiate and the idea of a diplomatic solution without heavy outside pressure is impossible
There aren’t any non-violent solutions that would make any impact, Israel has made sure of that. Protests in Israel and Palestine are suppressed and ignored by the increasingly far right Israeli state. Protests in the west are dismissed as anti-semitism and both parties continue to send aid. Boycott divestment and sanctions have been made illegal. Every vote in the u.n. or attempt to try the Israeli government on human rights abuses is vetoed by the u.s.
If you want to see what happens when they give up on violence look at the west bank. Fatah has long ceded military control to Israel and have they been rewarded with any degree of autonomy or rights for Palestinians? No just continual encroachment and violence from settlers and the IDF.
things were happening that seemed like the whole thing could come to a resolution without hamas being involved.
This is utter fantasy. There was/is a growing movement on the left in the west recognizing the abuses of the Israeli regime but that movement was very marginal and would probably remain so in the near future. The governments and ruling elites in the west still overwhelmingly supported Israel and were willing to turn a blind eye to the abuses, even as they have increased under the new far right government that came to power recently. Even the Arab countries that previously championed the Palestinian cause were defecting.
The trajectory of this conflict before Oct 7th was a slow legalistic ethnic cleansing in the west bank backed unquestioningly by the United States. A few more leftists might protest it in the U.S. but they are fundamentally impotent against the inertia of the current system as a majority of the people don’t know or care about Palestine. Doesn’t matter if a tweet calling Israel an apartheid state gets millions of likes if the U.S. Congress still votes 430 to 5 for aid to Israel every time it comes up.
The Palestinian cause needed something to keep it relevant and shake up the status quo that was slowly killing it. Oct 7th was probably one of the worst ways to do it, but at least more people know about how horrible the system is.
That’s asymmetric warfare for you, if hamas operated like Israel and had bases out in the open they’d be annihilated in a week. Israel would probably do the same if hamas had overwhelming air superiority.
Most Palestinians don’t support Hamas but most do support armed resistance, mostly because every other form of resistance has been taken away from them. That’s why they were voted in in 2006, and if Israel does succeed then whoever takes over after will probably just as militant, unless Israel gives them some other way to effectively protest mosque raids and west bank settlements.
Both can be true, they can hate the rocket attacks and the government that keeps poking the hornets nest making sure the rockets continue.
Nah, your thinking of nationalism. WWI and WWII had very little to do with religion but in terms of body count far exceed the likes of the crusades. If you ask your average soldier throughout history why they’re doing what they’re doing patriotism will come up more often than God. Naked self interest would probably be the actual top reason but people don’t usually say the quiet part aloud.
If you can’t actually play it with the new graphics what’s it’s advantage over original cities skylines?
The surest way to minimize civilian casualties is to not drop any bombs.
The incursion has been withdrawn, the threat has been contained as much as it can be. Any bombing now is pure retaliation. Any disablement of Hamas strength won by this will be only temporary and will be restored in a few years with more anger, all at the cost of civilian lives.
If Israel truly only cares about protecting Israeli lives, they’d establish a line, start rebuilding the fence with better surveillance and start negotiating for the release of the hostages.
You can if the company is a non-profit like open AI. Basically when you take on investments for a company you declare what the goal/purpose of a company is, either to make money (for profit) or for some other nebulous cause (non-profit) eg. Ending hunger or saving humanity from AI. If an investor thinks you aren’t following that goal and are pursuing some other goal then they can sue the company.
Sadly most companies are for profit so they can only be sued if they’re trying to do something that doesn’t optimally make money. So a fossil fuel company can’t be sued for legally dumping poison into the air if it’s the most cost efficient method, but they can be sued if they do a less cost efficient solution that would make air quality better because improving people’s health isnt there goal, making money is.