dagenleg

Who cares? It's just words. It's better than getting attacked while being paralyzed with indecision.

I think the poster refers to NATO countries. Considering you are a Russian citizen, it's safe to say you're not included in this "we". Although frankly I think you would also benefit in the end.

I don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous.

Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.

A few months ago I had a long layover in Hong Kong, so I did a quick visit - it looked a bit emptyish, though there was still a bunch of budget hostels, food joints and some touting going on. The rats are pretty gigantic though.

And I'm sure you see that there might me somewhat of a slight issue with calling Ukrainian cities in Russian, considering the political situation.

You are purposely ignoring the point I am making - the suffering WILL NOT end if the war ends. It will become much worse in fact. The only outcome of the aid stopping is the complete conquest of the country, one has to be completely blind or a shill to trust any treaty at this point.

I think the current anemic levels of support are insufficient, and the restrictions imposed on Ukraine in the name of "escalation management" are outright criminal, but even this level support is better than nothing. We are talking about war of extermination here.

The war is not going well and I could see how cutting the western support could force the Ukrainian loss. We have seen that when the front started crumbling during the period when the ammunition supply from the US was interrupted for half a year.

The west can definitely force Ukraine to sign a humiliating treaty, ceding land and freezing the conflict, there's plenty of leverage for that. If that happens, the days of Ukraine as an independent state are numbered - a new invasion will happen as soon as russians rebuild their forces, and this time it will be done right. People will continue to die even if the country gets erased from the map, just maybe not in the trenches, but in the torture chambers and prisons instead.

Yes, I'm definitely not following your argument. You're claiming that keeping the war going is extending the human suffering, while pushing Ukraine towards losing it would somehow end the suffering. That's false. Ukraine under russian occupation would be hell, and Ukrainians know it very well - that's why they are still fighting for survival.

How can people keep repeating the russian talking point that equates helping Ukraine resist the invasion with "extending the suffering". Don't they know what kind of hell the occupied regions have become? One can't pretend not to understand that the ultimate russian goal is complete annexation and assimilation, which by the way will provide ample cannon fodder for the next war of conquest.

I can't take in good faith this whole "suffering" rhetorics -- not containing the imperialistic expansionist nuclear-armed empire is sure to bring more suffering to the world.

This is straight up the official CCP party line you're repeating here. How Chinese people are somehow uniquely unsuited for democracy.

The "multiparty democracy system in Taiwan is not seen as a positive thing" by whom? The Taiwanese? The election results from that country have shown quite the opposite.

The problem that the western countries face is that there is no "West", nor is there any sort of western strategy or longterm planning going beyond the horizont of the next elections/next financial quarter.

Yet, the countries that do not belong to this increasingly obsolete club of waning colonial powers certainly do consider the West an adversary and a hegemon to be displaced.

"Public funding" is usually allocated for a specific purpose, as in, covering the cost of the scanning itself and after a lengthy bureaucratic process too. It's not free money.

The museums are deathly afraid of losing control over their collections, it's their main income generator. Why would the museum admin even bother going through with the 3D scanning projects, if they don't get to keep at least some commercial rights?

You're quite right, actually "privatization" would be a wrong term here, but I feel like my point still stands.

I am completely supportive of the release of the cultural heritage digitisations into the public domain, and I think mandating a release under the non-commercial license would be a good solution. Equally, I think it should be possible to license these for commercial use, at a reasonable price.

What I was trying to say with my "privatization" bit, is that the author did not intend to buy the scans from the museum, but definitely intends to monetize them, and sell the derived work, without commitment to put that work into the public domain. For me this very obvious profit motive seems incompatible with the image of the defender of the public rights that the author tries to cultivate.

And once again, I think we have to take into account that forcing the public institutions to give away their 3D scans, without cutting them in at least a little bit, will simply put a stop to the scanning campaigns.

Yes, to be commercialized and privatized by the author. Somehow all of the "open access projects" on the authors website seem to be concerned with releasing 3D models scanned by others, and not you know, his own projects. I don't see any commitments to publish derived work and such.

I know that the story of an independent artist fighting a big bureaucratic public institutions is something that would get a lot of sympathy here, but this really isn't that much of a "David and Goliath" kind of tale. French heritage and research entities are underfunded and understaffed, they don't have competent lawyers, or indeed funding to afford those, as we can clearly see from this case. One litigation-happy American can run circles around them and profit from it too.

If as soon as the heritage work gets 3D scanned with French public funds, it will immediately get scooped and monetized by private sector, wouldn't the ultimate outcome be that less objects get scanned? Why would the museums even bother fighting for the digitization grant funds?

Why exactly is non-commercial open access problematic?

I think the author is going overboard by framing this as some kind of righteous crusade for the public access. After all, he is interested in making profit from this. Sure, public funding paid for it, so then why should the profits be privatized?

I don't see how yours and your friends ethnicities matter here?

Sounds great, how did you do that? What's the config option?

Would you never consider actually serving in the army, if the war breaks out?

I am genuinely wondering how big is the intersection between "non-cli users" and "power users" on Linux

What about the assassinations of Iranian scientists? Are they also "military" targets?

Poor people don't fly that often

It is really crazy how ugly and tasteless that whole thing is. You would think the most powerful man in Russia would have access to better designers.

Quoting Zizek: "Don’t fall in love ... with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering is in itself proof of your authenticity. A renunciation of pleasure can easily turn in pleasure of renunciation itself.

A thing of note - this "near constant war" has always been fought against weaker nations, which the US military industrial complex has been able to outproduce utterly. China is a completely different kind of adversary and has historically proved that it can match the US - again I refer you to the Korean war, where China was able to check and drive back the US forces.

> PLA is comprised of mostly only-sons and hasn't been deployed in a real conflict.

Sorry, did you forget the Korean war? Sure, Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars were much smaller by comparison, but also very real conflicts.

> People lives are worthing much more than their organs when they are used for labor

I absolutely disagree with this claim. Forced labor is inherently inefficient and barely cost-effective, especially in the modern age of mechanisation and the lessons of soviet GULAGs proved just as much. Especially so in China, which in no way suffers from a shortage of labor force.

That's a scene from The Wire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0

I think you are forgetting the Manchurian operation and the impact it had on bringing down the Japanese war machine.

Why countries specifically?

Hey, it certainly was hideous, broken and inhumane, but come on, the Russian version of communism allowed for a lot of progress. Industrial and scientific both.