That article seems to focus on environmental sustainability, which, while important, doesn't really mention the economic viability aspect that was part of the allegations earlier in this thread.
If the economic viability of the port is suspect what does China gain by taking it back? An asset that is losing them money instead of losing Sri Lanka money? Or are they managing it better so it produces a profit for them but not under Sri Lankan management? Are they selling off the assets to try to recoup as much of their investment as possible but still end up worse off than if they never paid for it in the first place?
My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.
I have never understood why we persecute and prosecute seemingly without taking this into account at all and treat someone with pedophile urges who never acted on them the same way as we treat someone who looked at drawn images and both of those the same was as someone who looks at actual images of real children being abused or someone who actively abuses children.
If anything we should try to offer the first two help in their attempts to never let their urges affect any real, existing children.
However a lot of the time it feels more like our society is designed to achieve the opposite in its active hostility to people who want to live their lives largely in places where they won't encounter children.
And how exactly is it better if the same goods are made by American slaves in American factories? Trump is literally on the side of those who want to get rid of regulations, minimum wages and pretty much everything else that protects workers and consumers.
Well, technically your eyes (and the wavelengths they can perceive) are part of the system of light source, box and your eyes that make it blue. If the light source emitted a different spectrum of light the box would reflect other wave lengths, if the box was different it would and if our eyes perceived a different spectrum of light it would also likely be split up into named parts differently.
My point was mostly aimed at the people who view the constitution and constitutional rights as some quasi-mystical concept, similar to the one underpinning stupid phrasings like "natural rights" or "god-given rights" that also ignore that rights only exist because we, as human societies, decided to put effort into creating and enforcing them.
This seems to be more common in the US along with the quasi-mystical view of the founding fathers, the office of the president and the supreme court among other things. Possibly because a lot of those things have been around for too long for people to remember a time before they existed.
the people that know better work around you instead.
In fact one of the ways to work around you that causes the least friction is usually to just get you promoted away from the places where you can do the most direct damage in the area other people on a similar level to you care about.
A whole lot of useful stuff that wasn't publicly labelled AI got relabeled to take advantage of funding opportunities. That doesn't mean it is related to generative AI like LLMs and image generators though.
How do people that stupid even have six figure sums of money lying around to invest in anything new? Are they selling their house or taking on a new mortgage or something similar?
Bold of you to assume that Gen Z and Alpha will have the medical care to live that long in a US with even worse healthcare than people have in the past few decades.
People who make claims like this forget that nothing is protected by the constitution. The constitution is just a piece of paper. Rights are protected only by enforcement of the constitution and if nobody is willing to enforce it then the rights in there are completely worthless.
I think one of the issues with taking bribes is that even corrupt people don't want to completely ruin the economy because you don't want the people trying to bribe you lack the money to do so. Or in other words, even apart from any moral issues you don't want to kill your golden goose.
That article seems to focus on environmental sustainability, which, while important, doesn't really mention the economic viability aspect that was part of the allegations earlier in this thread.