And indentured workers!
Warl0k3
joined 2 years ago
That makes sense, thank you!
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding. It's just that none of what you've listed is inherent to the fediverse? There's nothing preventing data collection of that sort by an instance owner, and claiming anonymity on a system explicitly designed around open ledger social media doesn't seem entirely credible. There's nothing preventing someone from including tracking pixels, for example, and your browser can still be fingerprinted and linked to your activity on lemmy by 3rd parties through a number of meta-analytical approaches.
I love the fediverse and there's lots of good reasons for that, but I really just don't think anonymity is a selling point here. Again, might be misunderstanding what you mean, if so I apologize!
Wait, so are they injecting the number into the actual legit support website, or does this only show up in the google search results as the wrong number, but following the link directs you to the legit site? The article is kinda unclear on which it is.
Reference to the song "Dr Livingstone I Presume" by The Moody Blues.
Dr. Livingstone, I presume
Stepping out of the jungle bloom
Into the mid-day sun
What did you find there?
[...]
Yeah it's absolutely not true, everything done on the fediverse/activitypub is extremely easy to scrape (an unavoidable consequence of the design) and inevitably will be, if it isn't happening already. Though, it's true that it's not being hoarded and since everyone can scrape it, it's probably not being sold either!
According to the Historia Augusta, Alexander's "chief amusement consisted in having young dogs play with little pigs." [69] Herodian portrays him as a mother's boy.
In case anyone else was curious what the context was!
(Apologies that this response took a minute, there were scythe-related hijinx)
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
While it's not really a whatabboutism (since I'm not trying to deflect the conversation to an unrelated topic, I don't actually want to talk about the Uyghur right now), you're otherwise 100% correct. Explicitly, even! That's the whole reason I said it, to provide an (ironic) example and to point out your response in a way that is personally unimpeachable. How did you react to it when you read it?
One of those links is a fucking search bar.
Damn, sorry about the OECD link - I didn't catch that it was loading a cached page when I followed it. Public entity webdesign, what a charming thing. This one should be fixed. It's a great site to get familiar with in general, really. An invaluable source for a great many topics.
See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
Again, you're not wrong and this was the explicit point. That's what all that lampshading I did was about.
[...]even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
I'm not sure I strictly disagree here - I'm curious why you think the US is overextending itself? In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I'm not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war? I won't argue that China isn't making great strides geopolitically, that is patently true, but the gains they are making are mainly at the Russian Federation's expense - China has moved in to support many regions that were once staunch bastions of Russocentric influence.
That's not to say they're not gaining ground against the US, but the US and China's economies and development are closely tied together. Example: China is the #1 home country for foreign students studying in the US, in every university system with which I am familiar (which is west coast and ivy league I admit, I don't know much about student populations in the flyover states except to say that Earlham and OSU both follow this trend the last time I checked) and we sponsor thousands upon thousands of our graduate researchers to Chinese universities in kind. The US has as well entrusted a great deal of technological advances, even licenses for silicon design technology and other secrecy-order technologies like ultra-high-yield solar panels (rumored 45% efficiency) (this is the only S.O. technology I know of to be acknowledged) to China, and that wasn't even done for entirely hubristic or greed-based reasons. Realistically, China is the only near-peer power to the US, and (aside from that little whoops about russia) that's been true for a long damn time.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world. If we can both clear up our issues with homegrown fascists, and oligarch worship we might actually be able to get a whole lot of good done for the world, especially now that Russia has effectively removed itself from the world stage (and now stands impotently in the shadows, trying to be menacing). Joint US/China projects are already some of the most influential in the world, extending this would be to everyone's benefit.
Sorry, things are getting... dumb... here but I think that hits your major points. I don't like to do full point-by-point breakdowns, since it just spirals into longer and longer walls of text if both parties take to it, and I already spend enough of my time bickering with well-meaning randos on this website. This seems like a decent response to your overall thesis, though?
Ah and the edit points:
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China’s approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
Oh come on, you're better than resorting to middleschool-tier baiting. We both know it's more complicated than you're presenting even if there's no chinese boots on the ground.
That’s… the point. The time period is pretty old.
I think we might both be confused here; to my mind, bringing up the age of the data which is being used to address a historical point seems almost ontological. Why are we arguing about it?
Do you notice when you're doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you've been batted down over the last one, rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared? Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you're trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
All those links are highly relevant here (I admit #2 requires you to scroll a little, and #4 is a database frontend so maybe it was unfair to assume you'd be able to interact with it), arguably the third link most of all (it shows a ton of things in that very compact table, individual donations yes and it's a fine example of how China's restrictions on extraterritorial charity affect their potential impact.)
Look I get it, you're pro-china, but you're just assuming I'm opposed to you. It's... I mean, it's the stereotypical reason why so many people dislike .ml users, you're constantly coming in here and intentionally provoking interactions that you comfortably know the dance steps to. You personally are persecuting yourself, and it's kinda embarrassing. Gladhandedly dismissing the other party, focusing only on the things you support, never reflecting on anything that's actually said in favor of attacking in kind.
even if the US is narrowly ahead, it’s a richer country and it’s a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China
(edit:) Look you did it again. "Even if you were right, it doesn't matter and anyways I'm still right"
Anyways, here's a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
Oh, you edited it:
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point
Which data on that time period wouldn't be pretty old?
characterization of their approaches
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I'm a nice person so you're free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
Didn't notice there were multiple links, I take it?
view more: next ›
Those are phrases that get repeated verbatim as responses, which is the hypothetical reason they might be included on this (maaaaybe fake?) list. I'm actually slightly tired of them too, I have a couple students that really overuse them as responses to everything.
...Though I'd never be dumb enough to tell them that.