RyEgswuCsn

Exactly because it invokes such comparisons which would make China's donation look pretty pathetic.

What rules? Whose rules?

Ah, yes. "What about whataboutism!?"

> As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument.

It does sometimes gets you somewhere. Hypocrisy implies the (often moral) concern over the accusation is not a genuine one, that the accusers are merely criticising to advance their agenda. If an agenda is involved, then whatever the accuser says should be taken with some grain of salt.

> Your country is murdering peaceful civilians in another country with barrages of artillery targetted at civilian dwellings, in a war that they started for no reason but to build an empire, and you're here on HN complaining about people protesting it. It seems like you really ought to be complaining about the war, instead of other peoples methods of protesting it.

It would seem to me that you and Namecheap are suggesting that ordinary Russian people are at fault here because they are not revolting against their government, or worse, just because they are Russian. I am not sure if that is the appropriate message to send right now.

> I guess I'm asking is this, are you doing this for free publicity or for genuine moral concern.

Not all "what about all the other countries" questions are whataboutism. The author was not trying to justify the invasions because other countries were doing it too, but was to point out the inconsistency in the reasoning stated by Namecheap --- if it were a moral concern then it certainly appears to be an ingenuine one; if it were a PR move, then the pretension of it being a morally driven decision really defeats the purpose of the message.

Well, the secret service people also have their families to feed. Discontent and disloyalty will eventually make their way up.

I thought the point of sanctions is to inflict enough financial damage to the Russian people in the hope that they will start to turn on Putin?

Also sanctions can be an instrument susceptible to abuses compared to nuclear weapons because it's so one-sided --- there is little point for any country to sanction the US, for example, but a total US sanction would be disastrous for most countries.

I just noticed that someone finally fixed that stretched minesweeper screenshot on Julia's landing page.

Another potential offender is the hibernation process. It's probably compressed but still writing several GB to the SSD every time the machine goes into hibernation certainly doesn't help.

Yes, vim does has something similar. One advantage the IDE's implementation has is that the user doesn't have to explicitly specify the constructs --- it doesn't have to be parentheses or a word, but any construct that "wraps around" the cursor; so it's less effort for the mind.

Inside a pair of argument parentheses and want to quickly select a specific argument or the whole lot between the parentheses? Try Jetbrains IDEs' Extend/Shrink Selection (Ctrl + W / Ctrl + Shift + W) feature.

You can also use it in other places and the IDE can evolve the selections smartly based on ASTs.

We did fix the hole in the ozone-layer once, so there is that. But I agree, it won't be easy because generating energy from carbon sources is still going to be cheaper than building fusion plants for quite a while.

That being said, with today's social climate, I won't be surprised if countries race to do it just to boost their PR image; that would require some serious carbon-shaming though.

If fusion is achieved I guess we can at least start to remove carbon from the atmosphere by spending generous amount of energy.

Though I do agree with you that once human mastered nuclear fusion, it will only be a matter of time before we have to start worrying about overheating our planet. A potentially Sci-Fi solution would be to build planet-scale radiators to disseminate the waste heat.

I feel that the issue at the moment is the more heat is being trapped due to a CO2-rich atmosphere rather than producing excessive heat. After all, the energy we produce is probably miniscule compared to the amount of energy Earth receives from the sun.

Because of the mathematical "map" [0] perhaps?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_(mathematics)

I like the idea. Introducing teslacoin, also crypto-powered climate control, and also real-time right of way auctioning.

For sure. Though even non-tech people are well aware that adaptive cruise control cannot get us to true self driving but "AI" allegedly can.

The performance appears to be superior due to a large proportion of the driving is done on easy environment.

So it sounds like it's Simpson's paradox [1] at work. I had always wondered why many people are slow to accept self-driving cars despite the claims of them being statistically safer. I think that explains it --- to make consumers confident about the self-driving technologies, it is not enough for them to be able to handle the "easy" kind of driving (e.g. on highway and under relatively good visibility conditions) better than humans; they need to demonstrate that they can drive better than humans in the most challenging driving environments too.

I guess this is the classic scenario where human intuition is defeated by carefully presented statistics.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

That’s exactly the point. Had the Nazis won WWII, the narrative would have been the allies were the one that commit genocides, the morally corrupt, and the war-mongers; the Nazis will boast themselves as the most righteous, and most people would have no problem believing that. Hard to imagine for sure, but in a world where the winners write the history, it would be naive to think only the winners must be just because “justice always prevails”.

The point is that if it were a MORAL issue as you suggested, then the US would not have sold their technologies to other countries whose human rights records are controversial. The fact that they had not problem doing that entails that it was not a moral issue, at least for the US companies.

I can spin this too if you allow me:

"genocide" of Muslims via constant war-waging; "ethnic cleansing" of native Americans; natural resource exploitation on a global scale; "modern day slavery" (i.e. extreme capitalism) both domestically by trapping workers into lifetime debts, and overseas by outsourcing to sweat shops; "deadly global pathogen release" by politicising pandemic responses while failing at it.

Rivalry states smear each others all the time. Also no contender for hegemony is morally superior than another.

Interesting. So you think morality is quantifiable? Like it's fine to violate X amount of human rights but not X + 1. I'd like to hear your criteria.

Well, many military technologies developed by the US companies are being used to manufacture weaponries used to kill foreign civilians... what's the moral of that story?

Also, by your logic what if totalitarian regimes are to steal medical technologies from US companies to develop medicines for their citizens? Is that moral or immoral?

It will be as "good" as extinction --- by the time we realised there is a prion pandemic, it will probably be too late.

Quite the contrary:

> The deal still leaves Riot with a largely independent remit, however, with CEO Brandon Beck telling press that Tencent see Riot more as investment partners than as a fully-owned subsidiary.

> "Riot is going to remain completely independent. There are no redundancies, no layoffs, no synergy fishing, no leadership change," Beck told Gamasutra. "Nothing is going to change other than they're dramatically increasing their holding in the company. They see this more as an investment in a partner.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-02-07-tencent-ac...

I remember reading somewhere that Tencent has the reputation of not interfering with the game studios it had acquired.

I was wondering the same. Although they can somewhat mitigate that by adding some antifreeze additives to the water perhaps?

It’s not reasonable to assume all firefighters were involved in a cat rescue.

But if one says “Firefighters think cats are cute”, it certainly appears that it implies most firefighters share this opinion.

Well you already suggested that you are an European so that was a given. What I meant was judging a country's "worthiness" is already a weird notion --- how should "country of law" be quantified and compared? Who gets to say which country / system of law is better or worse?

The notion that a group of rich and powerful countries gets to decide how other countries should behave when said rich and powerful countries got to where they are through (both past and ongoing) atrocious exploitations of other people doesn't sound particularly convincing, don't you think?