They aren't even good at it. Their entire schtick is literally "you are obviously biased because you haven't read enough Lenin", like it's this big gotcha.
There are still places which basically make rural roads like this. They spray down a layer of heavy oil and then scatter small rock chips and recycled asphalt on top of of the sticky layer to make a roadway. Obviously it's not suitable for heavy use, but it's way faster than actually paving the surface.
I use USB-C for data heavy applications all the time. I'm running a monitor on one right now.
This means that a bunch of people are just going to end up with cables that are once again locked into their iPhone ecosystem and can't be used for any other purpose. I find it hard to believe that this is anything but Apple thumbing their nose at the new EU regulations by intentionally making their "compliant" cables useless.
They aren't dumping it. They dug miles of caves below the sea floor and are pumping the filtered water into the caves slowly over the span of decades. That's why this whole thing is very dumb. Japan is taking enormous measures to do this safely.
It's definitely more complicated than this. A fundamental premise of enlightenment democracy is the establishment of a framework for the mediation of political power without the need for violence. So that ideal of nonviolence goes back much farther than both the US or the fourth estate, and it can be argued that it is actually a starting point for much of the modern world's political philosophy.
But in general, it doesn't take a ton of thought to imagine why cycles of political violence are unsustainable and unproductive. If violence becomes a primary form of political expression, then you will simply have every different group trying their hand. This is why we prescribe the state with a monopoly on violence - a principle even older than democracy.
That isn't to say that violence is never just. Ironically, contemporary existentialism tackles this issue pretty nicely by establishing some imperatives which revolve around the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. Primary among them is the acknowledgement that the most sustainable and desirable form of change is done through conversation with the oppressor (as in liberal democracy), and that anyone who rejects this imperative acts in bad faith, just as the oppressor does when they refuse to treat.
Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor, and understanding the heavy implications of this action is critical to just violence. De Beauvoir argues that idealism is therefore one critical aspect of justice in all forms, as it seeks, by nature, to preserve transcendent humanity in others. And this is the ambiguity of the freedom fighter - the classic dialectical struggle will always reduce itself to mystification because ideals are not fixed like the flesh, against which violence acts. Therefore, while violence can be just, it cannot be justice, because it does not directly serve any ideal. As such, our morality must be "opposed to the totalitarian doctrines which raise up beyond man the mirage of Mankind" and "freedom can only be achieved through the freedom of others."
They were just residents of the city at the time, and obviously were aware of the massive protests but can also confirm second hand reports of violence and may have known people who died. They unambiguously expressed solidarity with the students, but you really need to press to get them to discuss it, and my Chinese is often insufficiently elegant for these topics. I actually tried to get them to make a video interview but they didn't want to. They are in the process of getting US residency and I think they might be more open to the idea once they are fully moved over.
They are definitely well aware of the censorship surrounding the issue though. They stop short of speculation about what actually happened but they will tell you that the Chinese media did not report the situation accurately starting in the weeks prior. When I asked if western media reported it more accurately they responded in dialect or idiom I didn't quite understand. Possibly some version of "how the fuck should I know?"
That's about the extent of that interaction. I have gotten them to discuss politics on a few occasions. I think more than anything the person in question just kind of wants to be heard and tell their story, but has real fears about doing so.
Lemmygrad and hexbear are extremist, primarily Marxist-Leninist communities which take a very narrow view of socialist philosophy and insist that this view represents the one true socialism, rejecting or even mocking basically all contemporary socialist thought which falls outside their bubble. Their knowledge of the topic actually ends up being pretty shallow, and they frequently cite philosophers who actually reject their autocratic preferences.
Basically they are "socialists" who have completely lost (or in many cases, never followed) the plot, and have reverted to a core philosophy of reactionary anti-west contrarianism. The term within the socialist community for this is "campist" but these people actually take that to an entirely different level of indecipherable discourse.
They aren't even good at it. Their entire schtick is literally "you are obviously biased because you haven't read enough Lenin", like it's this big gotcha.