dumdumdumdum

L(MAO)

> It's sad for a country that proclaims itself to be the land of the free with a healthy respect for property rights.

We respected property so much we even counted them as 3/5ths of a person.

Personally, I think they should just start helping Hawaii and Puerto Rico gain their independence instead of taking it out on the sea.

> Throughout history, countries around the world have taken other territories as their own. How many of them have ever been courteous enough to allow referendums to break off again? It is that courtesy that is remarkable, simply taking territory is normal.

Usually neighboring states, which were peer competitors. And even then it's always been seen as an aberration and not the norm. Modern European imperialism was unique in it's global scope and barbarity. Offering a token referendum after you've wiped out the natives or destroyed a society's cultural, economic, religious nature is not the noble gesture you think it is.

Since you seem to be an expert, would love some similar examples.

Can all countries do this, or is it only limited to Europeans? Ship enough people half-way across the world and hold referendums to assert your position.

> Fuel economy standards are being used as a tool to get rid of gasoline-powered sedans. Environmental activists generally support this.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Finally, a principled company no longer participating in the corrupt D.C. culture of "lobbying" politicians. Politics as no place in the workplace.

chad-xi-do-nothing-win.jpg

> At the same time, this is yet another example of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy.

The criteria isn't threatening a "wider disruption to the economy", it's threatening the quality of life of a certain class of people. When unions threaten a wider disruption to the economy for maintaining their quality of life, they'll do their damnedest to not give in. They'll pass laws outlawing strikes. Or send in "law-enforcement". As the saying goes, laws are for the poor.

Yeah, don't like Jim Crow? Just move to a State where you'll be comfortable forehead. Maybe you are already there!

The biggest mistake Lincoln made was leaving the Supreme Court intact after Dred Scott. Should have razed that shit to the ground when he had the chance.

Kind of wild this pervert is still where he is thanks in part to Joe Biden.

> No, but your comment was.

How? I don't remember saying the invasion is justified. I was addressing the claims of propaganda.

I agree with the sentiment. I was just curious what the other commenter meant.

Come up with a new word. Not everything is 'whataboutism'.

But more to the point, if it's such a small force why is part of the National Guard of Ukraine. Disband it and send the members suspected of war crimes to stand trial at The Hague. I'm sure a nation looking to join the EU would have no problems doing that.

edit: Also something that's bothering me...what do you mean they are "explicitly neo-Nazi"? Is that somehow different to being a Nazi in your mind? Weird thing to point out...

> This country should pay for every war crime they committed. There are no innocence in war. Silent complacency what brought it on. Russian IT giants did nothing to prevent the bloodshed. On the contrary, they actively propagate lies generated by their government.

Is this the propaganda you're talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Or maybe the Russians have hacked the official Twitter account of the National Guard of Ukraine to post this vile racist shit https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497

I thought I was. It's not justifiable to bomb and invade a whole sovereign nation to capture a few criminals. Especially if that nation is willing to negotiate their extradition for a fair trial. Just like it would not be justifiable for Afghanistan to bomb and invade the US now because a few criminals "tortured some folks" and killed 1000s of its citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11.

100x civilians died because of the war in Afghanistan, which was mainly planned in the US. Looking forward to disagreeing with your Afghani twin about the justification for invading and occupying the US for 20 years.

Just because you've invoked some article amongst your buddies doesn't make a war justified. The hubris is astounding.

> He is looking at the west build a fortress around Russia through NATO. Look at US reaction to Cuba and now imagine Cuba having a 100x more tactical and strategic geography in relationship to the US.

Wouldn't it be more similar if the Cuban missile crisis had taken place in Quebec or something? Or would that still have been better tactically and geographically better for D.C., than a NATO Ukraine is for Moscow? Terrain looks a lot easier there.

But a really really intelligent AI would try to run them through a neural net and be amazed when it got most of them approximately correct.

> What good is it to a person if he can escape a scary regime but can’t take his lives savings with him?

What if unstoppable digital cash makes it easier to setup a "scary regime" in the first place? Where do we escape to when every place is run by such people? How would we reign-in the power that such individuals would have?

> "We hypothesize that evolution is influenced by two sources of information: External information that is natural selection, and internal information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations and impacts the origination of mutations,"

But how was that internal information accumulated? Through natural selection? Couldn't people in Africa have a higher rate of generating the HbS mutation de novo, because other parts of their parents genome encodes that information? Like when a zygote is getting spliced up you're more likely to get errors where HbS gene is in Africa because they've inherited another gene that causes those errors because of natural selection.

I don't understand the distinction they're making between "natural selection" and "internal information that is accumulated in the genome through the generations". To me that sounds the same. But perhaps I've been thinking about natural selection all wrong.

https://github.com/msgflo/msgflo + https://app.flowhub.io/

Time is a flat circle. I'm sure this has been attempted countless times before, but it never seems to stick around.

https://github.com/search?o=desc&q=formatMsgNoLookups&s=inde... if you're curious who's patching what in the opensource (github) world.

> The systems that Russia and China are known to be developing or have already fielded include destructive and non-destructive types that are deployed from Earth, such as ground-based jammers, lasers, or interceptors, as well as small "killer satellites" positioned in orbit. A killer satellite able to maneuver close to its target could use various means to try to disable, damage, or even destroy it, such as jammers, directed energy weapons, robotic arms, chemical sprays, and small projectiles. It could even deliberately smash into the other satellite in a kinetic attack.

Seeing a lot of could.

> In another prime example of the secrecy issue, when asked, Thompson could not confirm or deny whether any American satellites had actually been damaged in a Russian or Chinese attack. Beyond that, he told Rogin that even if such a thing had occurred, that very fact would be classified.

Ok. Can we go back to the UFO discourse now? Or maybe Havana syndrome? At least those are somewhat imaginative. Please come-up with something more interesting like Russia/China training space dolphins or something.

Must have missed conflation in Capital. Is it like inflation?

2013 here. I'd say things weren't that great then too.

> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism

That's not entirely true. They wanted to negotiate his extradition. As any sovereign nation would.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...