ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,544

Joined

2 yr. ago

I understand the legal theory of human rights perfectly well, thanks though.

What you seem to be missing is that legality isn't the end of morality, but an agreeable approximation endorsed by a government.
The universal declaration of human rights isn't even that. It doesn't carry the weight of law.

It seems that you're arguing that no one should be denied a nationality, but that no one needs to grant you one. So your right to a nationality can be violated by... No one? Someone has to let you in, but no one in specific is responsible, and you can be stripped of it as long as it's not arbitrary. You have the right to change it, but not to anything in particular. Is that about right?
This is of course ignoring the provision against exile, protection of freedom of movement and residence, or the right to return to your homeland. Although you seem to believe that a right to return to your homeland has no basis in where your homeland actually is.

Interesting. Maybe using a document weighed to be inoffensive to powerful nations shouldn't be taken as the highpoint of morality. It's almost like any statement that might create the connotation of "moral obligation" is couched in layers of exceptions or vagueness.

Did you know the Holocaust was perfectly legal? And, since you say we didn't even have human rights before then, just the whim of the ruler, it wasn't even a human rights violation to gas children and burn their bodies!
Perfectly legal, and hence perfectly moral. Right?

People who can't see the distinction between morality and legality are disgusting.

The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that's not a right, then there are really none of significance.

Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.

Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.

The rights of people matter more than those of nations.

I think it's telling that you only consider something a human right if there's a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?

The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an exhaustive or definitive list.

Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you're actually full of shit on the concept of morality.

"I'm not arguing anything" they say, arguing that it's not a human right.

Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn't make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I'm not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.

Again, if taking someone from the only home they've ever known to live someplace they've never been, don't speak the language, and have no citizenship isn't a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don't give a shit if Sweden says it's fine.

The only moral way to fix the falling birthrate is to outlaw contraception and abortion, increase economic desperation to create a surge of underemployed young men, and increase the amount of anti-woman rhetoric and policy in popular culture and government.
You see, an increase in unemployment leads to an increase in baseline crime statistics, and an increase in dehumanizing and hateful attitudes towards women increases the rate of rape, which is now harder to prosecute. Devoid of any options, the birth rate rises and in many cases women are forced by implicit circumstances to limit their lives in ways they would not otherwise choose.
It's a tactic explored by the Romanians, but it didn't pan out. Clearly they allowed too many exceptions for maternal well-being, birth defects, rape and incest.

Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn't sign?

The constitution says people born here are citizens and they've decided to pretend it doesn't. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don't recognize get more weight?

And what's the stateless person going to do if they're wronged? Sue?

You're arguing that people don't have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
If that's not a human right, than basically nothing is.

Also, "only" north and south america? That's not a trivial portion of the world that you can just "only" away.

The police have gotten very effective at quashing effective movements, and we've had decades of concerted effort to make it more difficult to organize and to get people to actually oppose the concept of effective resistance in their own favor.
People with power don't want people threatening to destabilize that power. People who set media narratives need access to people with power, and so they don't want to convey those destabilizing factors positively.
This makes people view them negatively, if they even see them at all.

America has never had a culling of the rich and powerful. The closest we got was when we decided to exchange a rich and powerful person far away for a few closer to home.
As such, there's no weight given to the morale of anyone who isn't rich and powerful.
Reporters, politicians and businesses people have never had to put their heads in the scale when making choices.

Yes. The most charitable interpretation is that people have forgotten the lessons of the 1900s and think that a replay of Herbert Hoover is a good idea.

Last time it took a few decades and destroying countless lives to fix. Hopefully the cost is lower this time.

Of sorts indeed. For a lot of people the military is the only option we give as a way out of difficult circumstances, and the educational grants and such are potentially their only way see a better future.
It's rough but it's unfortunately the best path our society has seen fit to build.
God forbid we invest in underserved communities or provide general education grants.

Well, clearly the court only said that the three judges in question had to stop issuing nationwide injunctions, right? The others haven't done anything yet, and since each case has to be tried independently....

So fucking stupid. And a clear signal that they're going to start deporting citizens now, since even though I can show my birth certificate, I can't show my parents, or my parents parents and so on. Trace it back far enough and everyone will run into an ancestor that they can't prove the citizenship of. "Oops, your citizenship is actually invalid! We're sending you to a central American prison".

This isn't the best or most popular way to do it, but: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install

There is a way built into windows to deploy and use Linux from inside windows.

It's not the most pure experience, but it's a way to make sure you have something like a feel for how some parts work before jumping in any deeper.

A bootable USB stick is another way to try before you commit. Only reason I might suggest starting with trying it the other way first is in case you run into issues connecting to the Internet or something you won't feel totally lost. Having to keep rebooting back into windows if you have a problem can be frustrating, so getting a little familiarity with a safety line can help feel more confident.

Issues with a USB boot are increasingly uncommon, as an aside. Biggest issue is likely to be that USB is slow, so things might take a few moments longer to start.

From there, you should be pretty comfortable doing basic stuff after a little playing around. Not deep mastery, but a sense of "here are my settings", "my files go here", "here's how I fiddle with wifi", "here's how I change my desktop stuff". At that point a dual boot should work out, since you'll be able to use the system to find out how to do new things with the system, and also use it for whatever, in a general sense.

If it's working out, you should find yourself popping back into windows less and less.

No, I think it's saying that opensuse breeds Linux distros, and is trying to get Debian and arch to rub cloacas.

Also, opensuse once bit off a little chunk of someone's ear.

It's more that it's evidence that a reasonable person could doubt. It's the prosecutors job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense needs to convince a reasonable person that you might not have done it.
If there's other evidence phone location and activity data could be argued to be faked, but in isolation a reasonable person could doubt that someone faked their phone activity and location.

The court isn't interested in exonerating people, it's only interested in arguments supporting guilt and finding holes in them. It's why they don't find you innocent, only "not guilty". You don't argue that you're innocent, you argue that the reason they say you're guilty is full of holes.

Is the implication that we shouldn't be upset about bombing Iran because they're also doing other awful things?

Whenever they do anything people seem so eager to claim that it's just a distraction from whatever it was that was just happening, which itself was also just a distraction.
I've seen literally everything mentioned hear described as a distraction meant to draw your attention from something else.

Maybe, just maybe , none of it's a distraction, they don't care what you care about or notice because it won't change what they do and they're just absolutely awful people working their way down their terrible agenda.

Some of your emphasis is a little backwards. In the cloud computing environment, Amazon is bigger than Microsoft, and windows isn't even particularly significant. Azure primarily provides Linux infrastructure instead of Windows. AWS is bigger in the government cloud sector than Microsoft.

For servers, Linux is hands down the os of choice. It's just not even close. Where Microsoft has an edge is in business software, like Excel, word, desktop OS and exchange. Needing windows server administrators for stuff like that is a pain when you already have Linux people for the rest of your stuff which is why it gets outsourced so often. It's not central to the business so no sense in investing in people for it.

Microsoft isn't dominating the commercial computing sector, they're dominating the office it sector, which is a cost center for businesses. They're trailing badly in the revenue generation service sphere. That's why they've been shifting towards offering their own hosting for their services, so you can reduce costs but keep paying them. Increased interoperability between windows and Linux from a developer standpoint to drive people towards buying their Linux hosting from them, because you can use vscode to push your software to GitHub and automatically deploy to azure when build and test passes.
Being on the cost side of the ledger is a risk for them, so they're trying to move to the revenue side, where windows just doesn't have the grip.

I'm not sure it's a partnership. It looks and reads like the standard authorized data sharing setup. Anyone can configure that. It uses an open protocol that's standardized, let's users control the information shared with explicit consent and is basically what you want out of any entity that holds all your crap. The only thing it's really lacking is a standard protocol for sharing the actual data.

Linux distributions have it.

Microsoft using Google's public documented API is a long way from a partnership.

Upfront: it should be obvious that no sane person wants us to drop a nuke or thinks there's any connotation of "okay" to any aspect of it.

Why do you think it would be an illegal order? There are very clear rules on what makes an order legal or not and, horribly, attacking a nation that poses no real threat isn't on the list. What nations we attack is a policy matter, and the rules are very clear that the military doesn't get a say in policy.
Explicitly targeting civilians for a strike on a city is where the line would be. Targeting something else in the city and deciding the civilians are acceptable collateral damage is right on the line. Legally, it's entirely unambiguously evil morally.

There are checks that keep the president from unilaterally launching a nuke. Unfortunately, the intent of those is to ensure the president is legally competent and actually the president, not to ensure he's wise or rational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering

The system has been explicitly designed to minimize the risk of conscience preventing a launch. Issue training orders where the firing crews have no idea if it's real or not. Keep them on two week rotations where they don't have access to the outside world so they wouldn't know. Specifically select for people who will follow the order because it's validcand legal, without considering the greater context. People who are legitimately confused but ultimately unconcerned with protests against them specifically doing what they do, including clergy from their own religion. (Actual story of an ICBM operators reaction to nuns protesting and attempting to block access to the missile site he was stationed at)

There is no doubt in my mind that if the order were given and the VP and cabinet didn't remove him, that the order would be followed.

Multiple people is significantly more force than even a knife.

Proportional force means the force must be proportional to the threat, not to the force the other person is using. If someone threatens death with their hands, you can use deadly force to defend against a deadly threat.

One would be reasonable in concluding that masked people trying to force you or someone else into a van is an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault.

You can't use deadly force to defend against harassment, or theft because that's disproportionate.

Well, there actually wouldn't be a much larger explosion, that's just not how nukes work.
A nuclear explosion is an incredibly delicate process, and the material just won't go critical because there's another detonation nearby. It's not like dropping a bomb on a dynamite warehouse. There's not a great analogy for what it is like though. Expecting a satellite launch to happen because you blew up a tank of rocket fuel next to it? Not quite there.

Additional contamination from onsite material is a different matter. Most nukes detonate above their target since that maximizes damage, but it also reduces fallout. There would, however, be vaporized material that would be sucked into the air by the vacuum created by the detonation. It's not clear if the presence of radioactive material would make it significantly worse than the general "radioactive dust and molten sand" that would normally be sent into the air.

In general, if you nuke something there's going to be radioactive issues afterwards, and you shouldn't do it. Adding a nuclear facility to the mix is kinda just throwing rocks at the windows on 9/11.