I can’t wait for the nonfiction historical accounts of the FEMA deathcamps, or revised textbooks that accurately tell the story of how a devout group of Salem men saved the country from witches and witchcraft.
God damn I’m excited. Let’s go Texas, let’s get even stupider with it.
One way they conduct themselves is by using the politicians they’ve purchased to advocate for forming public-private partnerships, in areas where they should exist, which they can then legally siphon off the resources from.
I disagree on the private sector aspect of this, but I agree on the democracy part. Although, I don’t really view America as true democracy at this moment in history, but that’s besides the point here.
Fusion technology is at a point in its life cycle where it needs to be a public sector project. There is no path to profitability in the near-term, that would justify private sector involvement, except as a means to extract profit from the very expensive research process of even making this technology feasible.
Not that I’m against the private sector within the nuclear power industry. I’m very excited to see what they can do with SMR technology. I’m just extremely skeptical of most private-public partnerships, especially in cases like this.
Fusion reactors are incredibly complicated… This is a research reactor, with the goal of figuring out how to create sustainable fusion for real world uses by 2050.
This is not a performative action for a determinative outcome, this is aspirational and has no guarantee of achieving its goals, which is good. This type of research and science needs to be funded, even when it may fail.
Maybe this will spurn competition between powers to accelerate their own fusion reactor research, and create a virtuous cycle that accelerates this technology becoming a major source of green energy in the near, or medium-term, future.
Unless there’s a way to secure public funding for them, this seems like a reasonable middle road.
Like a Patreon, which while having its own unique set of problems, enables a paid content distribution ecosystem for independent creators unlike anything else available.
So, absent inserting invasive advertising, and lacking public funds, I can’t see how else they’re supposed to maintain infrastructure and development costs.
Not everyone has a safety deposit box, or the ability to access a proper and secure off-site storage.
And if you’re just keeping those in your house, then fire, flood, and other incidents can destroy all copies at once.
Nah, I’m with you, except I use BitWarden.
There are somethings either worth paying someone else to host, or where you trust a 3rd party more than you’re own setup. I realize other users may feel different, but ultimately it’s a judgement call
BW has been a pretty great opensource company, and it’s worth my $10/yr for premium.
Okay … All of that could be true, and then some, and it still wouldn’t give the DMCA any legal jurisdiction in Germany, or Mexico, or anywhere else that isn’t America…
Is this thread about some moral invective? Or is it about the DMCA?
I’m sorry, is this about Independence Day? Or the DMCA?
DMCA is an American law with American jurisdiction.
Removed by mod
Just so we’re clear, your position is that Biden is at fault, but if he wasn’t supporting this genocide, it would actually be worse?
It’s late, and I’m watching the fights, so I don’t have my full attention to spare, but I had enough available to read your comment and see that that you’re being earnest in your argument, and your analysis is not disingenuous.
That’s important to me, because while it’s really bad, it also means that you’re probably not a bad person.
For starters, it’s all counterfactuals, and while that alone means it’s a just barrel of formal and informal fallacies, it’s also based on deeply flawed, or just grossly uneducated, misunderstandings of a wide range of fields, ranging from international relations, to military procurement and sustainment.
I’m not trying to be mean, and to be fair, I have an academic background in multiple fields related to these subjects, so I’m not pulling my criticism out of my ass.
But another fight is about to start, so my text to speech comment must end.
No… what are you talking about?
You said the escalatory actions were the Abraham accords, and moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
I just pointed those were both actions taken by the Trump administration.
So what requires a historical account? Do you mean you just want to site random historical events with no context, and if anyone points out when they happened, that’s somehow a bad faith argument, or an unfair standard to apply…?
Oh my God… Did you really just read those “trigger events” in some article, have no idea what they actually were, or when they happened, but still decided to cite them in support of your argument…?
Removed by mod
Do you not understand that you cited only two events, and both of them occurred during the Trump administration…?
I’m actually at a loss for words, because if you don’t grasp how your comment is explicitly stating Trump is to blame, I don’t know what else to tell you.
No, you just did whataboutism.
Which is why I separated my other commentary, and addressed it in general, and not directly at you.
Because while it’s related to your comment, you hadn’t crossed that bridge yet, but there’s no shortage of that in these comments, read up and down.
Israel knows their client state, including the IDF and political leadership. Do you even read Israeli newspapers regularly?
I’m well aware of AIPAC, and the extent of their lobbying and influence operations.
None of that has anything to do with what I’ve been talking about.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Maybe you are under informed. The Abraham Accords and the moving of the US embassy were escalations in this conflict.
It’s like three or four comments up, did you even look?
Or does your extensive knowledge of Middle Eastern history not extend back that far?
In case you’re still confused, both of those actions were taken by the Trump administration, and it was the sole content of that comment.
Not nearly as catchy.