No, dude. Spoiler tags exist for a reason and this episode didn’t air that long ago. They are completely justified with their reaction. Moreover, you’re acting like the person specifically came to this community and started browsing. You do not know that. These posts show up on stuff people are subscribed to but also under ‘All’ new posts.
I’m not criticising you in any way, but I’d like to protect you from future spoilers and suggest not using the card view on your app. You can set post size to compact in Voyager
Both suck to be fair but Israel for me suck less. My reasoning mostly stem on their Ideology. Israel leans more to the US. Israel though recently leaning more to the extreme right, is still liberal compared to the rest of the nations in middle east. Woman has more freedom under Israel it seems.LGBT is more supported in Israel. For Hamas on the other hand has the same vibe for me with Taliban it doesn’t help that it is supported by Iran and Russia. As for Ukraine I support them since they lean more to the West (EU and the US) and they are more democratic than Russia. That’s my thought anyway.
Weeeeeeell…I like the Irish and I think they’ve been awesome all around (the IRA and their support for Palestine), but even by their mythology they apparently did colonize their lands ages ago; something about defeating the Tuatha De Danann who themselves defeated the Fir Bolg and the Fomorians. The De Danann, Fir Bolg and Fomorians are depicted as inhuman beings but I personally think these were peoples who lived in extremely ancient Ireland who were defeated by the ancestors of modern day Irish people, but then, this would have been quite a few thousand years ago anyway and holding it against them would be silly (basically it was so long ago that it’s not even concrete whether this myth has any basis in reality and certainly no trace of those peoples, their culture and their civilizations still exist; also even if you decide to believe the myth has some basis in reality behind it, Irish culture has not been a culture of colonizers for the last several thousand years).
That’s not really a culture of colonizers even during the height of Ancient Erin. A possible analog for a past group that very well could be a stand-in for inter proto-Irish conflicts as much as inter Gaelic ones is so tenuous at best. Most cultures have something like this, and it would be tantamount to saying there was an inherent colonial culture in the Ho-Chunk people because the Wąge-rucge man-eaters might be a cultural memory of another tribe their ancestors fought against.
There is a world of difference between human migration and conflicts arising therein and what we would identify as colonialism. Why even bring it up as such? Plus the Tuatha De Danann from even a quick search seem to be theorized to be Gaelic gods recontextualized into a post-Christianization culture. So it is literally not even from a culture of colonizers, but the reformatting of their own beliefs to a context of a cultural conversion. They seem to have come to mean “folk” or people much later and originally the term implied godliness. And then there is the PIE stuff and war between gods with humans in the middle which is foundational to a ton of places meaning it could either be remnants of a way more ancient myth shared with the Vedic and Norse etc, or a recontextualization of unique traditions subconsciously along the same lines as more eastern Europeans and Indo-European cultures. Least that’s how I view the Iliad elements in Irish myth, maybe a shared tradition or more likely later writers put characters and stories into a structure they already knew, ie the most recited myth in Europe.
We really need to be careful with history and modern terminology/conceptions. Cultures did not really remove one another necessarily, nor can we accurately talk about Bronze-Age and earlier cultures in strictly defined terms. We use names given to types of pottery we find to describe a general human presence in a large area across thousands of years. It is broad and ambiguous on purpose. Hell even more recent cases like the Germanic “colonization” of Celtic England is WAY more ambiguous than previous historians thought.
For that history and a good object lesson on how complicated human migration is to decode there is a great video by CambrianChronicles on Brythonic Britons and how they never disappeared www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FHRTpEhaAs
And that’s not to say that there was not a colonization and resistance in that case, far from it. There we have a material understanding of both cultures that can be defined even if the lines between the people of them is nonexistent in a practical sense. CambrianChronicles has several videos including one I LOVE on Arthur that drive home how originally Welsh/Briton Arthur was essentially a propaganda character for anti-imperialist movements. My point is the distinctions quickly disappear and framing there as being such a thing as “culture of colonizers” in a time when people hardly if at all identified themselves as having a culture is silly, applying it as far back as the etymological history and patchwork shifts in linguistic groups of the Bronze age is downright ahistoric. Especially with Celts, the very definition of which is hotly debated.
Another good POV is the short but wonderful history of the Bronze Age Collapse “1177: the year civilization ended” which shows some amazing research on how crises cause mass migration and why old models of how ancient Greeks came to Greece are pretty off base, with what was thought to be an invasion from the west by the Dorians might’ve been large refugee movements from Asia Minor which coincided with populations from Mycenean Greece fleeing eastward due to their problems. Heck the Sea Peoples are very possibly a phenomenon of various refugee crises and/or desperate moves by kingdoms we know for sure about trying to stay alive during what must’ve felt like an apocalypse.
You should not. But you should see the conditions under which Hamas has formed and how the Occupiers are at fault for this. The greater Palestinian cause is far more in the moral right than Israel has ever been.
“I support the fascistsdoing a genocide because they’re aligned with us and do our bidding” is the kind of honesty we’re looking for from liberals on foreign policy.
Genuinely, thank you for your honesty. Can you please tell the rest of the libs to communicate like this and we wouldn’t be as mean to them.
To be fair that is what both sides are doing China, Russia, US, EU, India and Iran. They all support those who do their bidding. Though I have a feeling everything is fascist on your dictionary that does not align with your view.
My reason is simple why I would align under the US, my country has mutual defense on them. The neighbouring country who is China claims major part of my country. The US offers free speech, they are willing to change no matter how slow. They may be messy but atleast they don’t prosecute their citizens for talking bad to their government. There is Women and LGBTQ rights. They got the big stick. What is your alternative?
What? These things are not related to each other by a good margin. In fact, since the FOSS is completely orderless, it goes against communism; which requires some sort of order just to be able to function. But either way, the parallel is not there or questionable at best, not to mention irrelevant.
Yeah guys, can we NOT drag politics into the Free Software movement? Everyone knows that IP law and the whole struggle against proprietary software and the giant corporations that push it is non-political.
Lost of syndicalists see themselves as communists. Including myself. I’ve been on the board, on the administration team and the negotiatiok team for my syndicalist union. All communism isn’t leninism.
I agree, FOSS not only appeals to communists but also to the most extreme libertarians.
Everyone acting in their own selfish interests, using the code they need and writing code to scratch their itch. Forking when they want.
The idea of a fork (I’m not happy, I’m going to do my own thing) is absolutely not a communist concept. Communism is usually centralized planification.
Is the core tenet of FOSS not about depriving any entity monopoly over the means of software production? That’s basically the definition of socialism, as opposed to a fundamental of libertarianism - the incontrovertible holiness of private property.
being against big corps is both a grassroots FOSS thing and an anticap thing. Also Socialism (step between capitalism and communism) requires “some sort of order” while communism needs as little or as much as FOSS does
How Linus Torvalds Achieved a Net Worth of $150 Million
Red Hat and VA Linux went public, and since they acknowledged it would not have been possible without the programmer, Torvalds received shares reportedly worth $20 million. Before it went public, Red Hat had allegedly paid Torvalds $1 million in stock, which the programmer claims was the only big payout he received.
He revealed that the rest of the stock Transmeta and another Linux startup awarded him were not worth much by the time he could sell them. However, in the case of his Red Hat stock, it must have been worth his while because, in 2012, Red Hat became the first $1 billion open-source company when it reached the billion-dollar mark in annual revenue.
Whether he exercised his stock options is unclear, but the money he makes from the gains could be the reason why his net worth has continued to soar.
Well, that's one definition of being communist, I suppose. Myself, I think that it's fairly safe to say that Torvalds is okay with private ownership of industry.
Parenti: This is my answer. I would wear that label proudly if I knew that you understood what I meant by Marxist. And when someone says: ‘You’re a Marxist now aren’t you?’ and their only intention is to give a buzzword which says ‘this guy drinks the blood of capitalist children’ or something, then I’m going to say no, I’m not your label, I don’t particularly want your label.
[…] Look, I wrote the book about the media. I don’t know what Karl Marx has to say about 20th-century US media, I think he had very little to say because you know… he left early. But there’s been a lot of creative thought and scholarship in Marxist literature and I feel that it’s a scholasticist thing [to say]: ‘Oh, you took your [Marxist] formula and applied it here…’
See, I don’t see these things this way because I’m a Marxist. it’s just the opposite. I started seeing these things and I started realizing that there was an analysis that had explanatory power for that. It gets very frustrating you know. For years I’d knock myself out trying to make an analysis, I’d come to the conclusion and I’d say: ‘Hey you know, the police are not neutral, they’re on the side of property and power.’ Then someone would say to me: ‘That’s Marxism, you know, you’re sounding like a Marxist.’
That’s Marxism… oh. Then I’d say: 'Wealth is largely unaccountable in many of the things it does in our democracy, I don’t understand, that isn’t what I learned … ’ / ‘Oh that’s a Marxist point of view, Marx said that you know.’ and it would go on, one thing after another and I said:
‘Boy, this Karl Marx was really something, you know, every time I put two and two together and come up with an analysis they give him the credit for it.’
I don’t even think the meme is about communism as much as it is just venting about how corps turned free-software into the panopticon it is today.
But Idc if Torvalds is a Marxist bc I’m not either, but marx wrote about how the proletariat should own stocks, so that isn’t even disqualifying tho.
And tbh I think most “marxists” just adopt that term because our political discourse is so corrupted that anyone who thinks that we shouldn’t curb-stomp an Amazon employee for wanting a bathroom break is treated like they’re Mao anyway.
I had to look up the panopticon reference, so I thought to share with others: ‘A proposed prison of supervision, so arranged that the inspector can see each of the prisoners at all times without being seen by them: proposed by Jeremy Bentam.’
There’s a gaping and dangerous misunderstanding in there. Having money or being successful under capitalism doesn’t mean you don’t see its flaws. The idea that rich people can’t be communists is like saying that only gay people can support gay rights.
Believing that the world would be a better place if we pooled our resources has nothing to do with whether you created an operating system that all of global computing relies on.
I unfortunately see a lot of white guy with a heavy (and fake) country accent does a “redneck” version of a popular rap or hip hop track and seeing other white people say “Now that’s how it should be done!”
Modern “country” is a plague and I hate it. Its the only genre I can’t listen to.
There’s a YouTube channel called Western AF that has some good tunes that are closer to what country used to be. I can’t vouch for every song but the ones I’ve heard weren’t reactionary garbage.
I guess that’s just the next evolution. Old country was basically gospel that wasn’t about religion. Country in the 80s and 90s was basically old rock but about cowboys, trucks, beer and being cheated on. I suppose by now you have to transition to the kind of music that was the in thing in the 90s to keep up with being the appropriate number of decades behind.
No, you literally can’t. Energy demands are only going to increase. The energy output for the land required, for a nuclear plant, is far better overall compared to the area required for wind and solar to match it.
You should look again how much can be generated with non-recycled and non-breeded uranium.
If we keep insist only proven designs can be produced, we are for in for a short lived transition that won’t last even for the normal lifetime of a reactor. If we stop insisting on proven designs, we are in for discovering some weird new failure mode here and there.
It will still probably be much safer than coal, but nuclear is either extremely limited or way more dangerous than the number indicate.
Lmao yeah man. Nuclear isn’t sustainable when you remove and ignore one of the most important aspects of it. If we account for breeder reactors we can power humanity for billions of years
The area required for enough wind and solar is still small enough to not be an issue. That nuclear needs less space per amount of energy produced does not matter
Any space saved is space for untouched environment, which is more beneficial to the planet. You’re using Chinese logic, which lead to mountains blanketed with solar panels. There will be consequences for such decisions down the road.
The space saved is so miniscule compared to theobvious benefits (way cheaper, quicker and easier construction than nuclear, no problem with long term storage of waste products) that it is an absolute no brainer. Also, it's not like windparks are on fields of asphalt.
Absolutely not. 100+ acres vs 3,000+ acres is anything but miniscule. I suggest you do a little research on the discussion you’re attempting to take part in.
See, you’re talking like 3000+ acres is a lot on the global scale, and it just isn’t. You could literally cover a few fields that grow better in indirect light, produce more from your crops, and supply the global requirements for electricity. Seriously, just 5 square miles is over 3000 acres.
The only good argument against solar or wind is matching load against production, and that one is becoming less relevant all the time.
Compared to a hundred acres? Meaning the other 2,900 acres could be preserved in some form of natural state? That absolutely is a lot when you consider the energy needs of a modern country. The fact you’re acting like that’s not a valid argument just proves how ignorant you are.
Growing crops under a solar array does not justify your inability to comprehend land size/use. Corn? Fine, that works with indirect. Soy and rice do not though. So 2 of the 3 most widely grown crops would be hindered by that plan.
So instead of destroying major crops with the ridiculous idea of building thousands of acres of solar panels, or tens of thousands of acres of wind turbines, we should focus on the much smaller impact of nuclear energy.
You keep coming back to that one single argument you seem to have with space requirements, which several people have explained to be ridiculous, and you just keep repeating it? Do you have any idea about the scale of a country vs that of a solar park?
Because that was the discussion, the amount of energy produced by nuclear vs other clean means and the amount of area dedicated for each to produce the same.
There are very few ignorantly disagreeing with this easy to prove fact, you being one of them. I do understand scale of a country, and the space required to power it via reactors saves hundreds of thousands of acres when compared to solar and wind.
Go Google the required acreage for each and educate yourself. You’re the one being ridiculous by attempting to call me out for “one single argument” and then continuing to prove you have no real concept of size and scale.
The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:
You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don't go and remove forests to put solar panels there
Plenty of space isn't arable in the first place, so what's the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?
@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?
Wow, I just can’t wrap my head around how many things you can get wrong, all at one time. You do realize that not all crops are the same, right? As I said in my previous post, there are plenty of crops (including pastureland) that do better with less direct light. And there are 1 million square miles of farmland in the U.S. right now. If 2% of that was covered with solar, and nowhere else, that could supply America’s electricity needs. Of course, this ignores all the great options for solar in urban areas, such as rooftops and parking lots. I haven’t heard many people complaining that they couldn’t park their car in an uncovered parking space at the mall.
Notice that this doesn’t require any new land to be developed, so rather than the pie in the sky idea that 100 acres of nuclear equates to the realized opportunity to return or keep 2900 acres in a natural state, it means 3000 acres of solar in areas that are already developed, so we can leave that 100 acres of undeveloped land in its previous state.
There is certainly a place for nuclear, especially until we have an effective means of power storage, but at the expense of solar, one of the cheapest electricity solutions we have right now, is probably not it.
You can’t wrap your head around it because you simply don’t want to. Of course I didn’t mention every single potential crop. I mentioned the three most widely grown, around the entire world. Corn, rice, and soy. Yes, others would do well, but building above these crops would never work on large agricultural areas. Why? Because you need machinery to harvest large grow ops before they spoil. Farmers would never afford the human labor required to match. It will work great on smaller scale farms, people using upwards of 25 acres. What does that achieve power wise though by comparison? Not enough power.
Pastures are an issue for two reasons. One, grass needs direct sunlight to properly grow. Two, animal agriculture is a major cause of carbon emissions. We need less pastureland, and covering it doesn’t help. You could convert existing pastureland into a reactor site, saving existing nature from development.
You would still need to develop new land for larger arrays. Land use that could be minimized by maximizing the possible power output.
You can. With nuclear as the baseline. Infinitely (not literally) more clean than fossil fuels and way, WAY more safe even including Chornobyl in the stats.
I’d just like to interject for moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, Steam/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Steam plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another component of a fully functioning Steam system made useful by Steam Proton, DXVK, and vital Wine components comprising a full OS as defined by Valve.
lemmy.ml
Top