IrateAnteater @ IrateAnteater @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

524

Joined

2 yr. ago

One of my issues with accepting cars sold by Chinese manufacturers, tariff free, is that it's not a level playing field. If China wants unimpeded access to European (and North American) markets, then they should allow foreign manufacturers unimpeded access to the Chinese market. Currently, foreign automotive manufacturers cannot access the Chinese market without forming a partnership with a Chinese company, and they cannot own more than a 49% share of said Chinese company.

Yeah, I'd love to, but first we have to tell that to Rockwell, Siemens, Bosch, ABB, etc, etc. All the proprietary software runs on Windows. Not to mention getting my company on board when we're already heavily into the Microsoft ecosystem at the corporate level.

I think that every operating system needs to a have a "do what the fuck I told you to" mode, especially as it comes to networking. I've come close to going full luddite just trying to get smart home devices to connect to a non-internet connected network, (which of course you can only do through a dogshit app) and having my phone constantly try to drop that network since it has no Internet.

I get the desire to have everything be as hand-holdy as possible, but it's really frustrating when the hand holding way doesn't work and there is absolutely zero recourse, and even less ability to tell what went wrong.

Then there's my day job, where I get do deal with crappy industrial software, flakey Internet connections and really annoying things like hyper-v occupying network ports when it's not even open.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying "Hamas is commiting war crimes and that is bad." That is all I'm saying. There's been no justifiable actions on either side for decades now.

It was a metaphor to continue a conversation about why having your combatants looking like and mixed in with the civilian population is bad. We're talking in the abstract, not literal. Keep up.

Yes, because in a war, you totally have plenty of time to stop and do a thorough investigation into which one of the five guys within sight just shot at you. Everyone will just pause everything while you figure out who you are supposed to shoot back at.

In what fucking universe do you live in where only one side of a given conflict commits war crimes?

Hate to break it to you, but there are no good guys in this conflict to cheer for.

I'm talking about what actually happens, not what is "right" or "allowable". In a warzone, if your enemy looks like civilians, then civilians start looking like the enemy. That's the reason why not wearing uniforms became a war crime in the first place. It drives up civilian casualties.

Their true goal is to erase Palestine period.

If you step back and try to take emotion out of your consideration, Israel's actions don't support that statement. Israel has enough military power to have completely erased Gaza months ago, without sending in a single ground troop, and there would have been absolutely nothing Hamas could do about it.

The situation as it stands right now is basically a textbook example of why the concept of war crimes exists. Taking hostages is a war crime, as is having your fighters not wear a distinct uniform. That second one is critical here, because when that law is broken, it turns civilians into targets.

Not sure who you were listening to, but I seem to remember from the beginning that one of Israel's stated goals was to remove Hamas from power. The hostages getting released was a condition for any pauses or ceasefires.

What's the pay at those regional schools and community colleges? Is it enough to cover massive student debt?

What research opportunities are there at those colleges? Could it be that teaching was just a necessary evil required for the job they actually want to do?

I don't see anywhere that specified you wanted English names.

They didn't stand down because Russian troops on "vacation" kept getting lost. It was an invasion from the very start.

Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO's "peace keeping"

Dude, at least visit Wikipedia before you argue. Lybia was an example of NATO enforcing a no-fly zone, not peacekeeping. And Lybia's HDI was back to pre-civil war levels three years ago (ie the 2021 data matches the 2013 data).

Are you going to pretend that Muammer Gaddafi was a benevolent and beloved dictator, and that there's no way Lybians would want him to fuck off all of their own?

it's hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America

No it fucking isn't. NATO lists all actions they've taken part of on their website. If the action is there, it was NATO, if it isn't, it was not a NATO action.

"every single war it's faught"

So that would be Afghanistan.

The Balkans were just generally on fire in the 90s and NATO enforced a no fly zone and sent peacekeeper forces after the fact.

There's a few more peacekeeping missions and no-fly zones (Lybia for example), then some training missions, some humanitarian missions (Pakistan for example), a few air campaigns against non-state entities ("terrorists" but realistically that's often just a matter of perspective), and a bunch of anti-piracy actions.

So it's "every single war" with heavy emphasis on single.

Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.

If Russia would quit invading their neighbours, their neighbours wouldn't have had the motivation to join NATO in the first place (see Sweden and Finland as the most current examples).

Yes and no. The reason companies are hiring them is for the image of impartiality they bring. If your firm gets a reputation for just always siding with the company, regardless of what actually happened, that image gets destroyed.

Plus, I'm willing to bet that there's not a whole lot of recurring business from individual companies for this type of service. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being the "neutral third party".

The fuck is BIFL?

People put far too much emphasis on hypocrisy. Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong.

If a murderer says "murdering is wrong", does him being a hypocrite make that statement any less true?

I'd be perfectly fine with banning Facebook too. In fact, let's just make the behavior itself illegal, regardless which site engages in it.

While we're at it, let's do something really fun, like making corporate board members legally responsible for their companies actions.

This type of stuff will take forever to get into law, so in the meantime, TikTok can fuck off.