We already have while fields studying precisely this line sociology and more, analysis of power balances and stereotypes, and more. Again, it's complicated, but it's not happening in a vacuum, we know how to approach this
A lot of Republicans and Nazis (but I repeat myself) believed they do what's right as a result of propaganda. What's right is about impact, not approval.
Something something due process, proportionality principle, etc. This isn't exactly trivial, but that first rule does help in determining who is the one infringing. To start with, both starting shit as well as unjustified escalation are both punishable.
If your definition is "do what you believe is right" it absolutely needs to be paired with a requirement to put effort into figuring out what actually is right.
That's not what he said. There's a difference between crimes that can't easily be traced to you and crimes that trigger outrage against you. China acts against the latter. Much of their consumer rights enforcement is about appeasement, not about actual rights, so you only see big action when there's scandals about serious harm and people effectively being robbed. And you better not talk about it when it's "done".
Yes they could, but it's really a question of their incentives. They could easily use it to manipulate elections, etc. The biggest danger is probably to East Asia where China is trying to claim most of the ocean, using it to copy what US Republicans has been doing with Facebook and Twitter to support attacks on politicians opposing them. See also how Facebook ignored its role in the Myanmar genocide
One of these people replying here supports a regime that forcibly "reeducates" minorities and ban teaching of their languages, tolerating only a uniform national identity.
But that's just people exploiting ambiguity, not a real problem with the principle. It's an implementation problem. And since every other alternative will be dependent on a similar definition with a threshold up define bad, this one can't be substantially worse.
You're counting wrong when you're talking about "most". If most people hated society you would not see cities larger than a few thousand people. People are annoyed by it, but they accept it because they know what they get in return (conservative propaganda is essentially about lying about what makes society good)
We already do partial tolerance. It's called fines instead of deportation, it's called reputation instead of tarring. What you're really looking for here is stronger cultural enforcement.
An agreement made to be able to share each other's space
Mutual assurances of safety in exchange for mutual acceptance of limits in regards to your shared spaces
If you break one of these agreements to others then you lose the privileges that they offered you
By demanding the benefits of a society you commit to honoring what it requires of you to maintain it
Look at stuff like the rules applied by hikers in the wilderness. "leave no trace" and sharing resources. Then you filter out a ton of the complexities of cities to show the basics of what it is.
As always, discoverability could be better. But mostly that's discoverability of recommendations and a smarter system for suggesting new games that would make a difference IMHO. Valve certainly isn't the worst at finding things you like, although their search is a bit clunky
Again, who is harmed?
And when one side is clearly hypocritical, we can establish that that their contract is unbalanced and unfair and strike the unfair terms.
... like for example determining that people like Netanyahu don't have the moral authority to punish others from doing what he himself does;
https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea
We already have while fields studying precisely this line sociology and more, analysis of power balances and stereotypes, and more. Again, it's complicated, but it's not happening in a vacuum, we know how to approach this
A lot of Republicans and Nazis (but I repeat myself) believed they do what's right as a result of propaganda. What's right is about impact, not approval.
Something something due process, proportionality principle, etc. This isn't exactly trivial, but that first rule does help in determining who is the one infringing. To start with, both starting shit as well as unjustified escalation are both punishable.
If your definition is "do what you believe is right" it absolutely needs to be paired with a requirement to put effort into figuring out what actually is right.
That's not what he said. There's a difference between crimes that can't easily be traced to you and crimes that trigger outrage against you. China acts against the latter. Much of their consumer rights enforcement is about appeasement, not about actual rights, so you only see big action when there's scandals about serious harm and people effectively being robbed. And you better not talk about it when it's "done".
Great firewall strikes again
Considering their company leadership backs Republicans which are harmful to US national security, yes
And had to revert much of that after a ton of complaints
You don't know about their social credit system?
Yes they could, but it's really a question of their incentives. They could easily use it to manipulate elections, etc. The biggest danger is probably to East Asia where China is trying to claim most of the ocean, using it to copy what US Republicans has been doing with Facebook and Twitter to support attacks on politicians opposing them. See also how Facebook ignored its role in the Myanmar genocide
I was probably thinking of the z80 then but that didn't get included
Original Nintendo DS had two different ARM CPUs for DS games
and the same CPU the GBA hadfor direct compatibility.One of these people replying here supports a regime that forcibly "reeducates" minorities and ban teaching of their languages, tolerating only a uniform national identity.
The irony, right?
It's a question of what they're intolerant of. Innocent people, or malignant people?
There may still be ambiguous points, but they're much smaller and fewer.
But that's just people exploiting ambiguity, not a real problem with the principle. It's an implementation problem. And since every other alternative will be dependent on a similar definition with a threshold up define bad, this one can't be substantially worse.
You're counting wrong when you're talking about "most". If most people hated society you would not see cities larger than a few thousand people. People are annoyed by it, but they accept it because they know what they get in return (conservative propaganda is essentially about lying about what makes society good)
We already do partial tolerance. It's called fines instead of deportation, it's called reputation instead of tarring. What you're really looking for here is stronger cultural enforcement.
An agreement made to be able to share each other's space
Mutual assurances of safety in exchange for mutual acceptance of limits in regards to your shared spaces
If you break one of these agreements to others then you lose the privileges that they offered you
By demanding the benefits of a society you commit to honoring what it requires of you to maintain it
Look at stuff like the rules applied by hikers in the wilderness. "leave no trace" and sharing resources. Then you filter out a ton of the complexities of cities to show the basics of what it is.
Kiruna
Inget är mer skrämmande än ett halvår av totalt mörker per år
As always, discoverability could be better. But mostly that's discoverability of recommendations and a smarter system for suggesting new games that would make a difference IMHO. Valve certainly isn't the worst at finding things you like, although their search is a bit clunky
Then ask for them to get ported