“We can disagree and still be friends” only works (and then it is a good sign of political culture) when both sides agree to respect each other as equal citizens and acknowledge to have the same rights. The “friend” relationship is generally perceived as an equal one - in this case it is implied, but might (depending on the context entirely) be anything but that.
I don’t know where the pic from OP comes from, but I think it’s a pretty clever caption.
Yes, I mean it’s used for transactions in the programming sense of the word. Turns out financial transactions require that as well. I assume the same goes for nuclear stuff. There is just very little risk to come across uncertainties when the language is that old (and the people who use it hehe - tbf it pays super well).
Edit: at least to my very limited knowledge
That’s what I summarised, aside from the us-centric references. I still don’t quite understand the emphasis on “true individual liberty”, what that should entail and the meaning of it for the discussion. I agree with everything else you said, that part just isn’t clear to me.
What’s your definition of liberty here? Just the absence of constraints? As in to be free from sth., opposed to being free to do sth.?
If it is, then sure you can have individual liberty. It’s just (almost) utterly useless. Or do I not get your point here?
If you are rooted you can use afwall+ to deny internet access for nova
That’s a really nice thought and I agree, but it doesn’t answer any of the practical questions the current of many countries often poses. Imo a, maybe temporary, solution that protects these artifacts is necessary.
Sadly FP will not change for these kinds of reasons, which is not saying we shouldn’t push for it nevertheless. In the meantime I fear not much good will come from an idealistic stance but rather practical solutions that at least preserve the hope we can at some point in time marvel at artifacts in their proper context. Just my opinion though
It’s important to think about the counterargument, I agree.
To counter your counterargument: it’s not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn’t improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person’s “greatness” will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.
To ensure that the update process finishes without interruption due to weak battery - if that happens it can brick your car. Tbf you can also just connect the battery to a power source and keep the engine off. Depending on update and car updates that take a few hours are not unheard of
This. Half of this thread is such an absurdly cruel and stupid oversimplification.
Just to make sure: I’m not trying to defend the nazis - the zealots that died as pows got what they deserved. But a lot of the common people never had a choice. It’s mostly the lower income classes that had less of a choice as well. Just meat that got send to the fronlines. I guess I just don’t get why people delight in their fates out of all the people/“nazis” they could hate on.