in Australia, a country known for it's sunshine that also has plenty of wind and capacity for hydro power, while still requiring gas/diesel backing of 1/3 of total generation capacity.
You seem to be missing their entire point so I'll state it in plane language to you.
You are advocating demolishing Palestine being justifiable because it places the security of Israel above all. The above poster is flipping your logic on you and saying demolishing Israel is justifiable as it places the security of Palestine above all.
And there's about a 50% chance that in a year's time they will do a 180 and pull all support from Ukraine and start actively working with Russia. That's why they're a shaky ally.
I've literally never heard that or read anything suggesting that. Britain/Britons has been used to describe the islands and peoples of the north Atlantic archipelago since ancient times with great Britain simply referring to the largest island (i.e. England+Scotland+Wales), as per wiki
Written record
The first known written use of the word was an ancient Greek transliteration of the original P-Celtic term. It is believed to have appeared within a periplus written in about 325 BC by the geographer and explorer Pytheas of Massalia, but no copies of this work survive. The earliest existing records of the word are quotations of the periplus by later authors, such as those within Diodorus of Sicily's history (c. 60 BC to 30 BC), Strabo's Geographica (c. 7 BC to AD 19) and Pliny's Natural History (AD 77).[10] According to Strabo, Pytheas referred to Britain as Bretannikē, which is treated a feminine noun.[11][12][13][14] Although technically an adjective (the Britannic or British) it may have been a case of noun ellipsis, a common mechanism in ancient Greek. This term along with other relevant ones, subsequently appeared inter alia in the following works:
Pliny referred to the main island as Britannia, with Britanniae describing the island group.[15][16]
Catullus also used the plural Britanniae in his Carmina.[17][18]
Avienius used insula Albionum in his Ora Maritima.[19]
Orosius used the plural Britanniae to refer to the islands and Britanni to refer to the people thereof.[20]
Diodorus referred to Great Britain as Prettanikē nēsos and its inhabitants as Prettanoi.[21][22]
Ptolemy, in his Almagest, used Brettania and Brettanikai nēsoi to refer to the island group and the terms megale Brettania (Great Britain) and mikra Brettania (little Britain) for the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, respectively.[23] However, in his Geography, he referred to both Alwion (Great Britain) and Iwernia (Ireland) as a nēsos Bretanikē, or British island.[24]
I don't even think victory is possible for Russia in Ukraine, never mind taking on NATO after.
By that I don't mean they cant win the war in Ukraine, there is a possibility of Trump winning and pulling US backing, the EU not making up the difference and Russia winning a slow grinding victory over the Ukrainian military. But can that really be called a win? All they will have achieved is trashing their own post soviet surplus, their military, their economy and their largest export market just to be able to spend the next 20 years locked into counter insurgency in Ukraine and expanding and strengthening NATO. I don't see that as a win for Russia just to gain a buffer state to ward off an invasion that would never happen thanks to nuclear weapons.
People are outraged because people with social status (actors, artists) in the west are losing out to technological disruption rather than the usual lower class people and people from the global south.
I'm confused, do you think international waters, like shipping lanes leaving the Red sea, are a thing or do you believe might makes right and if you can exert force you control it? If the the former then the US and the Houthis are both in the wrong, if the latter then they are both fine. So which is it?
Yes they do. I presume from your stance you are in favour of the US seizing or sinking Iranian ships when they are in waters the US controls just like the Houthis are attempting to do?
It's right there in the summary that they hit a military base and radar installation near the airport. Shit headline but you don't even have to click the link to get that.
No, how was I supposed to infer that you were fine with non-commercial AI from your two letter response to why you were licencing your comment?
I think its fairly naive to think that linking to a licence will do anything to stop commercial AI but not open ones, but you go for it if you think it's worthwhile.
I think you're missing my point. You are giving people more rights to use your comments by putting them under CC licence than not putting them under any.
I don't think linking to a licence that increases the rights of third parties to do things with your words (over the default all rights reserved) will do very much for you there.
You're right to an extent, but there is nuance. No end user goes through the Debian repositories and checking the source code for each package by hand. You would be well within your rights to be annoyed if a rm -rf / got added into a script in the repos somehow. A level of trust somewhere is unavoidable for things to work smoothly.
Of course the difference in level of responsibility between core repos and random code pulled of github is vast.
I don't have a significant opinion on the Disney case, though I will note that it stems from the fact that corporations are able to buy and sell rights to works as pieces of capital (in this case Disney buying it from Lucasfilm).
IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit
I thought that was a prima facie reason for why they are bad, And no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance, as you would have seen if you stalked deeper into my profile rather than just picking one that you thought you could have fun with.
Oh look you're now stalking me though comments and decided I'm a libertarian. In some places more regulation is good, in others poor regulation is bad. For example placing regulations on when unions are allowed to strike is an example of bad regulation, is that ok with you? Or would you rather I just played into your fantasy of techno-bro and just say "government bad, ubermen smash!" more?
in Australia, a country known for it's sunshine that also has plenty of wind and capacity for hydro power, while still requiring gas/diesel backing of 1/3 of total generation capacity.