Just the mention triggered me , and as you absolutely correctly pointed out, this is just internet
No reason to get upset
Is not. Small providers may go bankrupt if they are too wasteful, one single company thinks big. Thinking big it introduces to everyone at once various stupid things which waste energy too. Not the case with small providers. As in using Gmail's webpage versus an IMAP client.
Detailed analysis reveals that Google’s and Microsoft’s electricity consumption — 24 TWh in 2023 — equals the power consumption of Azerbaijan (a nation of 10.14 million)
It'd be fine with me if Azerbaijan consumed few times that in a few seconds and stopped stinking for a century or so.
EDIT: Oh, didn't look at numbers and units closely. The point stands, Azerbaijan should be nuked. Good for the planet (it's a barren wasteland in every part of it populated by Azeris, and even in the illegally occupied Artsakh they had their way with forests in just a few years with quite a success), good for humanity (reduction in negative value), good for countries whose politicians they bribe, and obviously good for Armenians against whom they commit crimes.
LISP machines were cool. They can bring back that kind of "AI" right now, I want to have one.
I mean, how cool can it be, having hardware acceleration of LISP-typical operations, and a whole LISP-built operating system.
Maybe resurrecting Genera is too much, but we can do with porting Emacs.
That's not a "how".
Not that, just that it's improbable because of lives soent
That's normal relatively to two senile Hitlers without taste
I understood the general meaning, and for the rest we have Google translate =)
Tulsi, Vivek, RFK, NIki…
It's funny that half the people in that list (Tulsi and RFK) are actually pretty normal (relatively, of course). Better than both running candidates.
OK, I haven't even been in the US, so just an outside opinion.
May have been both. Just like with Biden, there may be people feeling that their party should win, but not with such a candidate.
No, it's another distinction. Three different things. Something legal can be moral or not. Something made law can be legal or not. For example, if it's forced in some way so that formally you couldn't prevent it becoming law, but it's still illegal, it's still illegal.
Which is, other than copyright except for protecting the fact of authorship, why all censorship and surveillance is illegal, and, say, why Armenia legally includes Van, Erzurum, Nakhijevan etc, and the fact that Wilson's mediation and French mandate have been buried by force just means that Cilicia and Melitene are as well.
Restoring law and order takes effort, though.
Yep, I was thinking that maybe plural may have ä
What? Are you fucking delusional? I understand brown people are not really people for you guys there, but do you realize how many people indirectly and directly "these" people have killed in Syria alone, counting only cases of being simply too lazy?
Killing two people for fucking presidency? You think it's unrealistic?
Anyway, the answer to the question "how Machiavellian" is "fully" for everybody participating in politics, because we are still homo sapiens and our time is just as Machiavellian as Machiavelli's time, there are no naive people there, and if there are no poisonings and assassinations left and right there, that's for the same reason only there are no nukings left and right on the map, not because they are moral.
The shooter was killed by Secret Service.
Very convenient.
A "false flag assassination attempt" is not as hard to rig if you know it won't be properly investigated.
You are making a good example of a person who maybe thinks they can argue in good faith but very clearly doesn't, with emotional pressure and such.
Isn't it Kommentärsektion? Not a German, so just asking
There are people who think that something being official law is automatically legal. It's a bit inconvenient that Nazi Germany is the first example that comes to mind to explain why they are wrong.
Well, this comment of yours doesn't look like a good faith argument.
What I meant is that it takes two sides for one. And when two people are ready to argue in good faith, one may downgrade the level of contention from "argue" to "discuss" without any loss.
(For me and my sister it would still be "argue", but we are just rude to each other.)