Putin couldn’t care less about the support from some random programmers. Be realistic, what do you expect them to do? Take up arms? Protest and get imprisoned? Vote in the sham elections?
Targeting random civilians in hopes of political change is the strategy of terrorists.
Ignoring all the assassinations and strikes by Israel, including the unprovoked bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus?
So then you agree that there is no reason to be “glad” about this?
And how exactly is banning these contributors supposed to stop the invasion? These people have no control or culpability.
So you’re saying that the GDPR makes it illegal for individuals to use surveillance for self defense. That’s not true. Recital 50 specifically allows people to share data with law enforcement. And if you’re referring to putting up cameras, that’s actually very ineffective at reducing crime while it does expand mass surveillance.
A state-department funded propaganda outlet with a “controversies” Wikipedia section longer than any I’ve seen. Yet MBFC gives it the highest possible rating?
That’s an obvious lie. If you bothered to actually read the report, you can see on page 2 that the vast majority of shots are coming from Israel.
These scams are convincing enough that countless people fall for them. Blaming them individually is not going to bring us any closer to a solution. Better fraud detection and mitigation will.
The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary. They made it up, in no small part because of lobbying from the defense industry. There is no reason for NATO to spend so much more than all other countries combined.
Stopping Russia should have been done through economic and diplomatic means. No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion. It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia’s claimed insecurity. Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling. The EU is founded on that exact principle and it’s the reason why it’s still together.
Just because the US government likes to funnel trillions to their military industrial complex instead of healthcare, doesn’t mean the rest of NATO has to do the same. Even without the US, NATO already spends more on defense than Russia and China combined, even before the invasion of Ukraine.
You know very well that’s not what I said. But please educate me why nuclear armageddon is good, actually.
It scares me that anyone could come to this conclusion. Are you so clueless about the unimaginable, unprecedented suffering and death that such a conflict would bring, or does your emotional attachment prevent any rational assessment? There is no reality where WW3 and “not necessarily a bad thing” belong in the same sentence.
It’s a good thing to punish territorial aggression, but there can be no doubt that WW3 is the worst outcome for everyone.
Or you could just stop speeding. If you think that breaking the law and taking the risk of injuring/killing another human being is more important than a little annoyance, you should get your priorities straight. The world doesn’t revolve around you.
This doesn’t advocate for any substantial improvement of data protections. It’s merely a convenience argument to legitimize banning Chinese cars for economic reasons. American car manufacturers will continue to harvest and sell all your data, just with less competition.
Of course, this isn’t a surprise coming from the CFR, the lobbying organization for US imperialism.
Then maybe you should defer judgment unless you know the facts. Polar bears are incredibly strong and will hunt and eat prey much larger than humans.
Slow down. I merely clarified the matter being discussed. You might have a clear opinion on that matter, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a dilemma without a simple answer.
Also note that the US was attacked and got directly involved in the war mere months after the lend-lease act was signed. That is what NATO is trying to avoid. The difference is that the Nazis did not have nukes and were already fighting a two-front war, so they had little power or incentive to escalate.
That analogy is faulty. It’s undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.
Why do you keep posting articles from CIA-funded outlets?
The military lies and exploits poverty to coerce people. The federation is a post-scarcity society so people join because they want to. Also, the purpose of Starfleet is mostly exploration (with some exceptions).