Not gonna convince you, but in case others read…

• Ukraine is a sovereign nation
• Ukraine holds elections
• Ukraine is known for corruption but had been improving
• Ukraine has ethnic Russians in the Eastern areas of the country, but more Russians were sent into the region as agitators before the annexation of Crimea
• Russia believes Ukraine as both a country and culture should not exist, according to their strategy published in Foundations of Geopolitics, which they have clearly been following the past few decades
• Ukraine is a major grain producer for Russia and Europe, so the region is highly valuable
• Ukraine had been discussing NATO membership before the war
• NATO was created explicitly in response to fears of invasion of European nations by the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation is seen as the inheritor of the Soviet Union
• Russia considers NATO a nearly existential threat and has historically exerted political pressure over neighboring states to prevent them from joining NATO
• In text, NATO acts as a mutual defense pact, among other provisions around economic and political cooperation
• In practice, NATO has only been invoked in the Iraq War, attacks against Turkey from Syria and terrorist forces, and Russian incursions into Ukraine. Note that since Ukraine is not a member, NATO has not responded with the full provisions demanded in the text. It had been invoked by neighboring and nearby nations.
• At the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia to hand over their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and peace
• During the war, Russia has targeted and destroyed both civilian and military assets and individuals in Ukraine
• During the war, Ukraine has made drone strikes against military targets in Russia proper, including Moscow

Puppet government is a stretch and depends on your definition. Considering that Ukraine is not a member of NATO despite several economic ties with the US, I don’t think it’s much of a puppet state, if at all. (Edit: I say this not to suggest that NATO is subject to the US, but it would be highly beneficial to the US if Ukraine had become a member long, long ago.) The Ukrainian government being full of Nazis is generally considered fake news, but I haven’t seen evidence one way or the other.

NATO is not imperialist, as it does not establish hierarchical relationships. It is quite egalitarian. If anything, it encourages Europe to be more self sufficient, as the US wanted to minimize commitment to joining a European war. It is also meant to discourage and if possible prevent conflict among members. You could argue post-colonial economic dependence on the US, but… what countries don’t have that?

Also, to break the logic in the commenter’s argument… if a nation exhibiting Nazi behavior - that is, genocide or subjugation/mistreatment of a demographic under the government’s rule - then we should invade the following countries for the mentioned populations:

• China for Uyghurs and arguably Mongolians
• India for Muslims
• US for immigrants
• Several African nations
• Myanmar for several ethnic groups
• Israel for Palestinians/Arabs
• Some middle eastern nations for denominations of Islam
• Russia for homosexual people

While I’m a fan of… you know, not abusing populations, I’m also not a fan of invading sovereign nations. So Russia’s justification for invasion is a pretense and has a huge amount of historical context around it. OP’s argument is highly flawed.

I’ll only respond to items with cited evidence. Cited evidence should not include state-backed media or unreputable sources like some clearly extremist “news” site or individual blog.

If you’d like my citations, lemme know. Typed this up on mobile, so a bit of a pain. Corrections always welcome with proper evidence. Being corrected is good learning :)

Uhh… the USSR occupied the North until Kim Il-Sung took control. Just like the US with the South.

The (current) relationships between the North and China and between the South and the US are very similar, except the US has military bases in the South. But the US does that with all its allies.

As for the ROK military being directly subservient… I’m not as knowledgeable about this, but I think that’s only half true. The Korean military largely focuses on logistics and raw manpower, plus their special forces. (Holy shit, Korean special forces are fucking terrifying.) It’s largely understood that the US would lead operations, given that the US has more veterans, mass, and better-tested doctrine. However, as I understand, legally, Korea still controls its own military. KOTRA is one exception, but that’s a small subset of Korea’s military. But to be clear, this is my understanding from passive learning. I could be wrong about things and don’t have the time to read up right this moment. I’d appreciate corrections with sources.

What’s with all the Korea shit recently?

I live in South Korea. It’s convenient, safe, and modern. I might be biased because I live in Gangnam, but I feel like people here have more spending power on average than people in the US.

The societal pressure is a fucking nightmare, but that’s a uniquely Korean thing. Nothing to do with the US.

Calling the South under foreign occupation is utter nonsense. Obviously, it’s hyperbole and propagandist, but it also acts like Korea doesn’t have its own culture or resist American influence. Quit trying to be edgy and use your brain.

If you want to talk about occupation, read up on the Japanese occupation of Korea. That was foreign occupation.

Edit: wait, you might be right. As I understand, net neutrality is for the last mile ISPs, not the L1/L2 providers. So uh… what I explained below isn’t relevant. Eh, I’ll leave it in case people wanna learn stuff.

It was a bad explanation, assuming you had knowledge of network infrastructure things, but it does make sense. I’ll explain things if you’re interested.

Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs must treat all content providers equally. Your phone is not a content provider (most likely. You could run a web server on your phone, but… no). YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, TikTok, and your weird uncle’s WordPress site are content providers. Without net neutrality, ISPs can say, “Hey YouTube, people request a ton of traffic from you on our network. Pay up or we’ll slow down people’s connections to you.” The “neutrality” part means that ISPs must be neutral towards content providers, not discriminating against them for being high demand by consumers.

For the L1 and L2 part, that’s the networking infrastructure. The connection to your home is just tiny cables. I don’t recall how many layers there are, but it’s just “last mile” infrastructure. The network infrastructure between regions of the country or across the ocean are giant, giant cables managed by internet service providers you’ve never heard of. They’re the kind of providers that connect AT&T to Comcast. These are considered L1 or L2 providers. The data centers of giant companies, like Google for YouTube’s case, often pay these L1 or L2 providers to plug directly into their data centers. Why? Those providers are using the biggest, fastest cables to ferry bits and bytes across the planet. You might be pulling gigs from YouTube, but YouTube is putting out… shit, I don’t even know. Is there a terabyte connection? Maybe even petabyte? That sounds crazy. I dunno, I failed Google’s interview question where they asked me to estimate how much storage does Google Drive use globally. Anyway, I hope that gives you an idea of what L1 and L2 providers are.

I’m not a network infrastructure guy, though. If someone who actually knows what they’re talking about has corrections, I’d love to learn where I’m wrong

In case you were innocently using whataboutism without meaning to, here’s a tip to avoid it.

If you’re going to compare to the US or wherever, first ask yourself if that place was mentioned in the comment you’re replying to. If not, it’s whataboutism.

Not the original commenter, but I would guess that the goal would be to reflect the population. Women are about 50% of the population, so assuming all things created equal, they should be about 50% of any other population, like those with a specific job title.

You missed a very, very important keyword there: “deserved.”

Theologians miss a key point of rational debate where they don’t provide proper definitions and make big assumptions that aren’t great.

Who defines what the “correct” effect of an action is? Who defines what consequence is deserved by a choice? If God is the almighty being, he decides what is right and wrong. In Abrahamic tradition, God defines all of these arbitrary rules and expects humanity to obey them without question. Shit, God ordered Abraham himself to murder despite that supposedly being against the rules.

God is like a kid that holds a magnifying glass focused on an arbitrary point near the anthill. He set up the conditions for us to hurt ourselves according to his arbitrary rules. Why didn’t he tell Satan to fuck off with the fruit? Why did he allow Satan to exist in the first place? If God created everything, then he is responsible for everything by our human logic. So God can fuck right off

MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat

The Remembrance speaks to us on the evil of man’s will, of the reasons for Exodus, and the Rites of the Traveler. Arcadia is our destiny and our right. Enlightenment is our gift. By the Bloodnames of the founders we must return, return and protect that which is unique among the stars. Terra awaits us as it was written. We are the last of the Wardens, the sole hope for the Earth.

Wolves still prowl

It’s not a matter of reward or punishment. It’s a matter of the skills required for continued success.

Early startups require big risk-taking, progressing at an absurd speed, charisma to get investor capital, and really just being a little crazy.

Once the concept is proven to be viable and potentially profitable, the focus needs to shift from proving it can work to making it sustainable. This involves less risk, process improvements to avoid issues like getting sued, better money management, more careful time management to avoid burnout of non-founder employees, and generally just being more rational about things.

It’s rare that a person can exhibit both of these sets of behaviors, so companies will often swap out the former for the latter as a company matures. If they didn’t, the founders might unintentionally drive the company into the ground by taking unnecessary risks after finding something that already works.

Does that answer your question, or did I miss the mark, still?

And I’m guessing a smaller chip makes it even harder to detect. Makes sense. Thank you

Can anyone inform me regarding the purpose of preventing China from producing these more advanced chips? Is it protectionism? Is it anti-China policy? Is there some kind of particular military application?

This community is on lemmy.ml, which explicitly leans hard left. Maybe a memes community on another instance would be less like this

Ah, sorry. I realize I wasn’t clear at all. I wasn’t agreeing with the previous comment. Just mentioning how it was a problem. This author sounds like they don’t know much

Haven’t read outliers, but I live in Korea. Weak people in authority here is a serious problem. See the Sewol ferry incident: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol

The culture of saving face and not causing disturbance compounds the problem. For example, some married couples prefer to not know if their partner is cheating so as to not disturb the peace of the family. Fortunately, this is becoming more rare, but it is still an issue.

Edit: Not agreeing with the previous comment. Just mentioning where the idea may have come from. I don’t believe Korean culture impacts plane crash rates. When the chain of command and responsibilities are clear, Koreans make stuff happen. It’s actually quite admirable. And cultural idiosyncrasies aside, people generally try to do what they believe to be the right thing, and not letting a plane crash is pretty right under normal circumstances

Saved

Thank you for taking the education angle. I’d like to add another perspective for folks’ benefit. I’m not 100% sure it’s correct, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Your labor has some value. Ideally, you should be paid a corresponding amount of wealth to the amount of value you generate through your labor. So you do $20 worth of work and get $20 worth of money. This is the ideal.

But how much labor is worth $20? Capitalism takes advantage of this ambiguity. The capitalist, e.g. a business owner or investor or similarly positioned person, pays you $19 for that $20 labor and pockets the remaining amount as profit. Sure, the capitalist likely provides some amount of leadership and direction, which is labor with value, but their compensation vastly exceeds the value they generate. This is why you see CEOs getting >300x the pay of their employees. The labor of these CEOs is not worth that much. One person’s labor literally cannot be worth that of 300 people. (Engineers may pipe in on that point, but please realize you’re in the same boat.)

If you see capitalism from this perspective, it makes sense why you would be angry. You’re literally getting short-changed for your effort. Not cool

So what’s the alternative? Well, there’s a bunch. Personally, I like the idea of employee-owned companies. This way, you get the advantage of pooling people’s resources, and any profit can be invested back into the company to generate more wealth for its employees or be held onto in case of a downturn. Both are better than a CEO’s pocket.

One issue is capital investment. Starting a company is expensive, and many companies take a long time to become profitable. If every company had to bootstrap, we’d see much fewer successes and much slower progress. I’m not exactly sure how to solve this, yet. Would love to hear folks’ ideas

Unfortunately, the definitions change based on context.

When we’re talking about political and broad economic systems, private means non-government organizations. Public means government.

When we’re talking about a company’s status, public means its equity is traded on a public stock exchange. Private is everything else. So a ma and pop shop is a private company and a private organization. Microsoft is a public company but a private organization.

The rest of you commenters are assholes for talking to HardNut like this. They clearly don’t know these definitions, and rather than educate, you criticize to inflate your own egos and display some bogus superiority. Instead, explain the terms so constructive conversation can happen. Cue the “well it’s not my responsibility” crowd. If you want to promote your own ideas, education is a better method than mockery when it comes to those who aren’t clearly and steadfastly directly opposed to you. And even for those directly opposed to you, the display of educating wins third parties to your cause.

Good on you, HardNut for trying to Google things and figure them out on your own. The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we’re terrible at naming things.

All of that can be the same as other stacks except the Apache bit. You can stand up a Go application on Ubuntu hitting MariaDB as its persistence layer. Or Python. Or Node. Or Java. Or even Ruby. Shit, Haskell can do it.

Also, exec is a code smell. Arbitrary code execution is a massive security risk, and the effort to mitigate that risk is often less than explicitly building out the required functionality.

I think you need to explore more technologies, my friend. And read up on some security things

Edit: I now realize you mean exec as in calling out to a shell. All languages have this. Still, the overhead of spawning and managing a new process is often more than just implementing the logic in your application itself.

Sure, but when did bring in your right mind preclude you from being a customer? There are plenty of industries based on preying on idiots

Good point. That stuff is chill. I dig me some Johnny Cash now and then, too