Ah yeah it def helps to pay for a lot of time up front on mint. I’m just a little leery about being locked in for a whole year but would be good to save more.
I left after 2 months. Their network has the same coverage as ATT & T-Mobile combined, which is awesome… BUT
Their use of those towers is deprioritized. Which means all their requests get sent to the bottom of the queue. If there aren’t a lot of people around, no problem! If you live in a metro area, you wait so long to connect that it’s basically like you don’t have service. It worked great on road trips but was unusable for 90% of my use case.
I think a lot of the providers with discount prices do the same. A cursory internet search tells me Mint does too, but that they only use T-Mobile’s towers. So if you switch, your coverage might be better but your data connection times might be worse. Or maybe ATT just sees heavy use in my area, and you’d be fine.
I’m in Atlanta, fwiw. Not exactly inside midtown/downtown, but within the perimeter of 285, so still fairly close to city center.
Fanatics and extremists exist regardless of religions. The latter just allows them to control people easier, and islam happens to be particularly good at that.
Of course, most ‘religious’ people have enough common sense to not follow them to the T. When the government is religious though, like islam encourages, you have a big problem
Fanatics and extremists exist regardless of religions. The latter just allows them to control people easier, and islam happens to be particularly good at that.
This is more accurate.
It’s not that “fanatics exist in all religions”, it’s “fanatics exist”, and religions just give them a cover that is depending on society difficult to challenge as in many places, a religion’s influence on society and rules is quite normalized, completely ignoring how ridiculous this influence is.
Islam doesn’t encourage any more for theocracy than other Abrahamic religions. The existence of religious fundamentalist Islamic theocracies is a lot more complex than Islam. A lot of it can be traced to colonialism, the decolonization process and Western interference in Islamic countries. This is largely why Iran is one of those. The last Shah was seen corrupt autocratic puppet of the West by many. As a counter to it, the country over-corrected and landed in fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Radicalization of Islam leading to similar governments happened in other Islam-majority countries. Before the 60s and 70s, many Islamic countries didn’t differ a lot from Western countries when it came to social liberties. There are a lot of images of Tehran and Kabul with women in mini skirts for example.
While I am not saying that modern Islamic countries are not problem or thousand when it comes to civil liberties and democracy, Islam in my knowledge was more tool and less reason behind it.
Islam isn’t better at it than other religions it just happens to be the major religions in the countries where those fanatics managed to seize the power. You can find similar examples with Christianism (Europe, USA), Judaism (Israel), Hinduism (India), Buddhism (Myanmar) and probably many more.
Islam isn’t better at it than other religions it just happens to be the major religions in the countries where those fanatics managed to seize the power
That’s no coincidence imo.
I see all religions as negative, but Islam is the only one I can personally attest to, being an ex muslim. It’s cult-y and tends to bring out the worst in people, more so than most religions from what I’ve seen.
The problem is when a government is captured by religion.
There is nothing quite so bad as religious types getting power based purelly on being religious types.
I suspect that, because it’s the most fanatical power-hungry types (Moralism is really just a way of justifying the forcing of others to your will) who both have the most motivation to seek positions were they can have free rain to really go on powertrips on other people, and display more overtly the very religiosity that is the whole reason for a government whose power is based on religion.
Certainly those who feel no need to impose their will on others and who can even gasp see some actions as overzealous, don’t have anywhere the same drive, zealotry and backstabbing instincts to climb up the ladder in such power structures.
Imagine not being able to return ‘home’ because you took your hat off. 🤔
I never quite realized just how pedestrian taking the hijab off is, yeah. Never really thought about it. It is quite literally just taking your hat or well, head-scarf, off. It’s like when my great-grandma came in from the rain and took that plastic headband off she always wore to keep her hair dry.
Ridiculous how backwards we as a species can be, and sadly often are. 😔
Is it too reductive to conclude this is just men wanting to be able to dictate what women should and shouldn’t do? Anyone claiming otherwise, even women who “would gladly wear it” feels like Stockholm syndrome to me.
I think that it's going to be a tough sell to the Kiwis. Until 12 years ago, New Zealand didn't even allow US nuclear-powered warships in her waters, because there was that much concern from the Kiwi public about them.
New Zealand was suspended from ANZUS in 1986 as it initiated a nuclear-free zone in its territorial waters; in late 2012, New Zealand lifted a ban on visits by United States warships leading to a thawing in tensions. New Zealand maintains a nuclear-free zone as part of its foreign policy and is partially suspended from ANZUS, as the United States maintains an ambiguous policy whether or not the warships carry nuclear weapons and operates numerous nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines; however New Zealand resumed key areas of the ANZUS treaty in 2007.[3][4]
ANZUS was overshadowed in late 2021 by AUKUS, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It involves cooperation in nuclear submarines that New Zealand will not support. Australia and New Zealand, "are poles apart in terms of the way they see the world....I think this alliance underlines that they’re going in very different directions,” said Geoffrey Miller, an international analyst at the Democracy Project in New Zealand.[5]
AUKUS is specifically about submarine tech, not just tolerating someone else's subs passage. The Aussie government may have wanted nuclear vessels and decided that the public was finally sufficiently on-board, but New Zealand has had more opposition than Australia has.
I'm still having a hard time liking him again after this. Whether or not he committed a crime according to the legal system, he still openly admitted to very predatory behavior. From my understanding of the situation, none of the claims against him were really refuted or disproven, just deemed to be "not that bad, after all", which doesn't really sit right with me.
I probably still won't be watching any of his new stuff, either way. He's still a sex pest.
I want to hear about what the contaminant was. I saw in another article that these are additive manufactured parts; they take powder metal, use a laser to fuse it together, and 3D print the parts building up layer by layer. Any extra metal powder is collected, sent to a company for cleaning/testing/certifying and then recycled through to use in the printers again.
So was the contaminant there from the beginning or was it introduced into the powder at some point as it cycled through? What does their readacross look like; are there other parts out there that potentially have similar contamination? I hope they eventually disclose way more detail and progreas as the investigation continues.
Yeah, while I am happy for her and wish nothing but the best for her, is this really going to change anything back home? How many other women have the means and training to do what she did? I guess the one thing this does is highlight to the rest of the world how terrible things are in Iran, but I'm under no illusion that this is going to improve the lot of oppressed women in Iran. They might be even more restricted from attending overseas competitions.
I don't know why she would be responsible for changing anything in Iran?
She made a statement to highlight the atrocities in a terrible country and it put her in the crosshairs. This is the same thing as putting on your oxygen mask before you help others while on a plane.
She isn't responsible, and I hope that was clear in my original statement. What I'm saying is agreeing with the sentiment in the original post that rather than lending support to the problems faced back home, it might conversely make things worse.
It's not her prerogative at all, just a sad observation.
It’s not necessarily about what she specifically could do but it’s emblematic of the greater issue. Not the first intelligent person to never return to Iran due to the leadership and she won’t be the last
First of all, if she went home she would’ve just been arrested, how does that help anyone? And second, why’s it on her to move Iran past it’s issues? Good on her for her brave protest and good on her for not going back and choosing to do more with her life than end up a martyr in an Iranian prison.
The way to “help” Iran is for more people to leave. Significantly more, basically anybody with two brain cells to rub together. Leave only the most assinine idiots behind and then they can run their own country into the ground hardcore but they no longer affect anyone with it as everyone else has left.
Basically, Iran has to cease to exist in its current form. By burning itself out. This is incidentally the same way we could move past idiotic religious believes in the first place.
I would say that what you say makes sense but it doesn’t really work super well in practice. I’ll give the best example. North Korea. We have choked them on food, energy, medicine etc. For going on 70 years now. They are still a cancerous blight on the world. With nukes. Sure I guess the argument could be made that they stay inside north Korea and keep to themselves though.
If the Irani government already intends to arrest her, her only avenue to “help Iran” was taking up arms. I think everyone here has enough brain cells to understand why you can’t shame any random person for just not making that choice.
A very gifted programmer I met from Iran had to do the same. Originally from Iran, he wanted to marry a girl from Myanmar. This was forbidden for some reason so they said “fuck it, let’s go to where there is loads of tech jobs”. I was working in the Netherlands at the time when I met them. He’s now flourishing in the open source software space over there. Brain drain 100%.
Someone from Iran marrying someone from Myanmar in the Netherlands sounds like a movie musical… “Two oppressed people from different parts of the world find love in beautiful Amsterdam!”
Actually there is no problem to marry someone from a different country. The problem is you cannot marry with a non-muslim person, so he/she should accept Islam first. 😟😄 weird like many other rules! I don’t know if other religions have such restrictions or not, I would be happy to hear if someone knows.
The problem is you cannot marry with a non-muslim person, so he/she should accept Islam first.
I’m a muslim and as far as I know, there’s no law that forbid you to marry non-muslim. There’s many muslim clerics or saints who are marry a non-muslim in history of Islam.
But to do that, first you need to have a really strong faith so your partner in future will slowly understand and accept Islam by her/his own will. The common understanding that seems to not marry a non-muslim by many muslims because is not an easy path to have a relationship with different faith. Especially family and tradition on both side.
The most common cases about this are men muslim married a woman non-muslim. On the opposite, is very rare cases that happen in history of Islam. Some (fiqh) law by clerics forbids woman muslim to married a men non-muslim, and some allowed that with requirement the woman need to have a strong faith first.
I have many friends who’s their parents married with different religion (islam and christian, islam and shinto, islam and confucius). I admit is not an easy path than married with same religion as far I can see in my own cases, but I respect their choice…
Iran has more freedom than you think. Yes, the law about how to dress is very restricted there. But as far as I know for marriage law, Iran (Shia islam) surprisingly very flexible on that compared to other Islam sects. There’s no problem on marriage in Iran to married a non-muslim partner, even without any requirement (of course an agreement from both side men and woman is needed, even parents agreement are not needed for some Shia sects and its legal). But for sure exclusively, any muslim woman in Iran who’s not obey on how to dress properly according to Shia Islam (even she’s married with non-muslim), the punishment will severe.
Do you live in Iran?!! If not then I should say I was living there and I know the law well. So I invite you to read more about the marriage law in Iran. Sorry, but freedom doesn’t make any sense in Iran.
Wait. Before they start telling what other should not do. Let’s charge George W. Bush and his administration for crimes against humanity as well. Are they forgetting what happened in Iraq? He is a war criminal and should be put in jail.
The ICC is going to need a shit ton more storage space if it’s going to start collecting evidence of US crimes - I’d say about quadruple it’s current capacity.
The CIA also played a central role in preparing the death lists of those who were to be eliminated after the coup by squads from the Ba’ath party. Mr Aburish says that he believes 5,000 were killed of whom he has collected the names of 600, including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed the educated elite of Iraq.
The death lists were drawn up in CIA stations across the Middle East with the help of Iraqi exiles. In Egypt the agency was helped by an Egyptian intelligence officer who got much of his information from Saddam Hussein living in exile in Cairo. But Mr Aburish says: “The American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time [magazine].”
As the CIA lists reached Baghdad the result was a massacre of extraordinary ferocity. Pregnant women and old men were killed, some tortured to death in front of their children. Mr Aburish says: “Saddam Hussein, who had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for the fellaheen [peasants] and the muthaqafeen, or educated class.”
reuters.com
Hot