The idea that the atomic bombs directly caused the surrender of Japan is contested, actually. It's more likely that they created an urgency in what was already looking like a losing battle. The difference in that situation is that Japan wasn't fighting a war of resistance at any cost against the US, they were fighting as part of an alliance on one front of a world war. In that case it is very real that troops lose morale, civilian casualties become too great, and loss of military assets make victory look unlikely, and then surrender looks attractive by comparison. But I think in the case of popularly supported resistance to colonizers, that threshold is quite high - people feel quite strongly about revenge and are convinced of the justice of their cause in that situation, so the brutality of their colonizers isn't likely to do anything other than strengthen their resolve.
Frankly, I actually think the atomic bombing and firebombing campaigns would be considered war crimes if they happened today. It's really weird that people justify it so much by how horrible the Japanese state was at the time - tons of innocent civilians, including lots of children, died horribly, and it was 100% anticipated, and in the case of the atomic bombing, they did it twice, knowing that. You can't justify your own actions by the crimes of your enemy.
NL is neither a Nordic country nor ethnically homogeneous. Just like all countries with a history of colonizing other people, many of those people are now in NL. Stop blaming everything on diversity
I actually did stop engaging as much after eliminating Reddit. Lemmy is nice sometimes, but I'm nowhere near as active. I probably post a few more YouTube comments, that's about it.
Yeah, I could imagine that, if we're just counting the baseline minimum of what that production would cost. I think for the most popular podcasts they could easily afford it, though. It would certainly cost much less than what they're paying Joe Rogan.
There's something about driving that innately dehumanizes - I swear I've actually seen studies about this. When people are behind the wheel, they don't relate to the world around them as personally, empathy kind of disappears, it all becomes something like a game, and everything between them and their destination is just an obstacle to be overcome.
How many people did the Fukushima incident actually kill? Meanwhile people are actively being killed by air pollution and climate change caused by fossil fuel energy. Nuclear energy incidents seem worse because they happen over a short period of time, but it's just like with airplanes - plane crashes are horrific and disastrous, but statistically airplanes are massively safer than even rail and especially road transport.
It requires good governance and adherence to safety standards and upkeep to be safe, but we've shown that we can reasonably do that for the most part.
Renewables should of course be the first priority, though lithium mining is also a significant health hazard - but really when you compare everything statistically and not just by the significance of individual events, there's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eliminate fossil fuels by any feasible means, and that includes nuclear power.
I can understand that but at the same time, it can also counteract a lot of localized perverse incentives. The majority of people might want more housing, but then at the same time there's a significant part of the voting population (especially at a municipal level) that doesn't want it in their community because of unfounded fears of higher density, so everybody wants it somewhere else and it doesn't get done. Well, if you go up a level of government, it's going to get done everywhere fairly, and people finally realize that it won't be a problem.
Yeah I don't think this is completely true. I'm not in Gen Z but close enough and I do see that they're a lot more accepting of a broad spectrum of attitudes toward sex, and that includes asexuality, but I think they're also quite accepting of people being quite the opposite of that. I think where they get more weirded out and are willing to say so is when people - and because of patriarchy, it's almost always men, but not always toward women - make sexual comments about real people who aren't explicitly inviting that. That's something that has been declining in acceptability over time anyway and Gen Z just more commonly takes it a bit farther, and has a better understanding of consent. But I've really never seen this "women aren't capable of consenting" thing outside of a strawman for people who want to pretend it exists by misinterpreting real criticism.
You could argue that for major languages, where the translations would drive revenue, they should prefer to hire people to do the translations from within the target market - it would create some amount of economic opportunity rather than just being another way for the developed countries to suck up money on services from developing ones in particular.
What do you think about the argument that it keeps costs down when things are generally getting more expensive? In effect, you might actually still be benefiting from lower prices without ever knowing it.
I don't know that I always buy this, but I can see the logic of it and I think it may be true sometimes, especially if things are competitive enough that being able to keep your prices down is more beneficial to business than putting the savings straight into profits.
Otherwise I think probably rather than customers seeing direct benefits from lower prices, an attempt to capture more of the excess profits of automation with taxation is needed.
Linux, if we're counting the entire userland and typical components rather than just the kernel and its interface, definitely has worse (binary) compatibility than Windows, and potentially even Mac OS. The only saving grace is things like Flatpak which bundle the entire system tree they need with them and therefore have pretty long-lasting binary compatibility. But it's quite normal to have to recompile some old software from scratch when some common system libraries get updated, really only core things like glibc have long-lasting binary compatibility, and you can't even guarantee that compatible system libraries still exist even when compiling from source sometimes, because every project has a different approach to backward compatibility.
Now, to be honest, things are much better with containerization (like flatpak/snap/docker/etc.), but that doesn't really help you much for software that's older than those unless someone bothers to try to figure out all of the dependencies and package them up and it still works. The only reason why it seems to be okay is that Linux distributions recompile all of the deps for you every time something changes and you get everything all at once, so you rarely see any of that all break. But if you have anything compiled from source, and you didn't statically link the whole thing, you'll see the problem.
I mean those are pretty major things, especially if you're part of one of the affected minorities. If I were trans I wouldn't really want to work with a coworker who insists on misgendering me and makes a fuss out of me using the right bathroom.
If it doesn't come up, it doesn't come up. People can agree to disagree, also. But there are also cases where the disagreement is so fundamental that it makes it pretty hard to respect someone or even want to be in the same room as them.
I do but only with people I've actually made friends with who I'm pretty sure will either agree with me or at least respect my point of view. I'll share mildly political articles in discussion groups for those specific things at work sometimes, but those are places where people have specifically opted in to hearing about them and are interested in the topics.
Well, Labour is legitimately sliding right, and it's become somewhat common among the so-called "left" in the UK to make a scapegoat out of trans people - it really wouldn't surprise me that an older, liberal woman in the UK would have some right-wing things to say.
Well, extrajudicial would imply not legal. What you're really pointing to is that when white supremacists are involved, somehow the government suddenly cares about due process and civil rights.
The idea that the atomic bombs directly caused the surrender of Japan is contested, actually. It's more likely that they created an urgency in what was already looking like a losing battle. The difference in that situation is that Japan wasn't fighting a war of resistance at any cost against the US, they were fighting as part of an alliance on one front of a world war. In that case it is very real that troops lose morale, civilian casualties become too great, and loss of military assets make victory look unlikely, and then surrender looks attractive by comparison. But I think in the case of popularly supported resistance to colonizers, that threshold is quite high - people feel quite strongly about revenge and are convinced of the justice of their cause in that situation, so the brutality of their colonizers isn't likely to do anything other than strengthen their resolve.
Frankly, I actually think the atomic bombing and firebombing campaigns would be considered war crimes if they happened today. It's really weird that people justify it so much by how horrible the Japanese state was at the time - tons of innocent civilians, including lots of children, died horribly, and it was 100% anticipated, and in the case of the atomic bombing, they did it twice, knowing that. You can't justify your own actions by the crimes of your enemy.