9,227 karma · joined January 23, 2015
Between 1995 and 2015 (capturing data before and after 2001) the US's change in tourism increased at a faster rate than France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, and the UK. Spain may have increased at a slightly faster pace, but it's close.
Anyways, let's compare to more "welcoming" places. This shows the slope of the data, so it's pretty easy to compare the changes between countries.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/international-tourist-tri...
If you have data that shows otherwise, feel free to share it.
Their impression was that it wasn't and that other countries do similar things. Stating your understanding of a situation helps guide discussion and helps people answer your inquiries. Doing that should be encouraged, not somehow treated as an endorsement of tyranny.
Strangely the stats don't back your assertion. Wouldn't being "unwelcoming since 2001" result in a decrease in travel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States#V...
Asking whether or not something is new or how frequently it's been done in the past isn't saying it's acceptable nor does it put them on the side of tyranny. In fact, a sign of tyranny would be a significant uptick in the number of these searches, and how else would you be able to see that worrying signal without answering the question they asked?
I mean, you're not really, considering everything that follows that statement.
The money in sports allows for people to focus on it and perform at the highest levels possible and compete against others who also have this same focus. Advertising is what allows for this to happen.
People, in general, enjoy seeing athletes do things that most normal people could not achieve. Watching the Tour de France, reading about ultramarathons, etc is enjoyable. The same thing is true with musicians, actors, artists, etc. I may not be interested in, say, eight string guitars, but I will still find it fascinating to see someone who has mastered the instrument.
The fact that these athletes are paid so well is a good thing. They are getting a significant share of the revenue they generate, at least in American sports where the revenue is more or less split evenly with the teams. That was not the case decades ago.
Clearly the Americans are just dumb. Or, maybe, just maybe, a stealth strike fighter uses an internal weapons bay? While the planes flying with the PL-17s strapped to it have the radar cross section of a city bus?
It's great that they're on device and all, but how incredibly stupid.
My response didn't say any country was better or worse than any other country, just that China had an imperialist past.
The strange whataboutism you're doing and trying to "debate" things that only you have brought up isn't a compelling form of argumentation. Stating that I was defending and spewing "apologist nonsense" about the US, when I hadn't mentioned the US at all is just really odd. I can't tell if you're really young and haven't learned about how to argue points and/or you're from China and simply can't handle anything negative said about your homeland?
Ok? They were still an imperial power. Having a stable border for a little while doesn't affect that definition.
> The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason.
The countries acquiring them are doing so because they are best strike fighters on the planet, and it's not even close. Unless you know something that Norway, Japan, England, the Netherlands, etc don't know?
Also.. this little event where they added something like 10% of the current size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tib...
But I'm sure that wasn't imperialism because they had already conquered Tibet previously... in an act of imperial expansion.
Why would Japan mass produce an inferior product when they would easily be able to design and build a far superior one? "Shahed" isn't just another word for drone, it's a specific company's name.
You are the one who stated a specific company wasn't a security company. When asked to define what one was, your definition included any company on the planet.
> Also lets not belittle the hard work by just labelling it out as free
Who is belittling it? My point is that it's hard work and should be rewarded, not expected by someone to be done for them.
> The thing that works in their favor is that no one else can verify it either which absolves them from any responsibility
That's not how this works, at all. You need to have enough evidence that you can confidently demonstrate that there is no sign of a broader breach. If you get sued and can't do that, you're in trouble, because being unable to do that shows that you were acting negligently.
> Any company where understanding of security practices has a direct impact on its revenue from early phases can be considered as a security company in my view.
This could, quite literally, be any company on earth then? But not CrowdSec, because they had a single security issue? Every company on earth has had those, including every security company.
Also, the idea that this type of thing could just be stood up as a "not-for-profit" company and ran for peanuts is kind of silly. How would the nominal fee pay for the engineers and infrastructure? Or would this just be a volunteer effort and you'd like people to do this for free for you?
> In one case, during the development of an A.I. model called GPT-5.6 Sol, the system wrote hidden notes to remind itself to hide errors from users
It's odd for sure, but it's literally while the model was in development.
They said that... where?
In 2024, if the Dems just had a normal primary they would have won. But they consistently lied to people about what they were seeing with their own eyes (Biden's obvious lack of mental acuity), which people find really insulting, and then forced in a weak candidate.
To clarify, since this is the Internet and people make lots of assumptions: I voted against Trump three times, plus I voted against him in my state's open GOP primary, which he lost.