Juliate

19 ms·

271.
by Juliate 2y ago
"Stop not enjoying it" is indeed a way better take! "Giving it someone who does" is also an opportunity to socialise and grow a mutual understanding of said music desire. That's sometimes even how collaborations sta
272.
by Juliate 2y ago
This is so good! :D may I steal this? Pleeeaaase.
273.
by Juliate 2y ago
Good for them, really. But don't mistake one thing for the other: how is it different than, say, being Emperor Joseph II asking Mozart in Vienna to write an opera for him? Mozart wrote the music, not Joseph. Similarly, you can hike acr
274.
by Juliate 2y ago
That's not smug at all. That's not what I'm saying either. It's just that.. you can't master something you don't practice and understand. It's true in every single thing in life you do, sports, literature,
275.
by Juliate 2y ago
Totally with you. But it's the trend we get to re-balance in a good way: > People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex,
276.
by Juliate 2y ago
You're not composing music with an AI generator either: you're pushing a button with a few, limited instructions, and expect something that rewards your perception of what makes good music for your intention. If you don't enj
277.
by Juliate 2y ago
You're debating two different things, two different experiences Creation is a human activity, charged with emotions, efforts, which are their own rewards, as much as the end-product, which is invested of this human (sometimes collectiv
278.
by Juliate 2y ago
Totally agree with you on both points. Yet, we don't know how strong Apple can be in the face of an adversarial government. And we do need something to compete with it, aiming to have at least the same goals in privacy and user friendl
279.
by Juliate 2y ago
> people don't live in a country based on what the President or Federal government decides... Depends A LOT on what they decide.
280.
by Juliate 2y ago
I have several European friends East and West coast, mostly in tech. They all started working towards packing/selling their house, going to Canada or back to Europe as soon as past November. Their (shared) hesitation first was not whet
281.
by Juliate 2y ago
Note that NATO talks about the « nature », not the « scope » or region of the conflict. I don’t think nuclear is likely either. Because of the deterrence. But again, if Russia thinks its only way of winning is firing a nuke, I do believe th
282.
by Juliate 2y ago
Indeed, we see it differently. I believe they will shy away. It’s been made very clear to them by the OTAN ( https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_192648.htm?selecte... ) that it was the red line before a
283.
by Juliate 2y ago
> I see no reason why you have to perform a nuclear attack here. You reason like a person here, not as a state. It’s not a matter of life and death for a few single individuals in a triangle. It is of millions of individuals at once, and
284.
by Juliate 2y ago
We shut it off precisely because it became a political lever for Russia.
285.
by Juliate 2y ago
Population alone and artillery alone are the ingredients of logistics, not logistics itself. The failure of the initial 3-days invasion was a demonstration that the « great Russian army », even with the support of Wagner and Tchetchenia, wa
286.
by Juliate 2y ago
Because it’s a matter of both time (if you don’t react definitely, that means that you may have the weapons but not the discipline to use it, so no credibility), and deterrence (conventional destruction is not a deterrent in this case, and
287.
by Juliate 2y ago
That’s exactly the doctrine in mutual dissuasion: offensive use of a nuclear weapon breaks the statu quo, where the equilibrium is only ensured if no one uses it. The first that breaks the statu quo is not a reliable power anymore in this e
288.
by Juliate 2y ago
Logistics is not a matter of culture. When you run out, you run out.
289.
by Juliate 2y ago
But the point is not for us now anymore. The point is to enable tomorrow’s independance. So we have to start diversifying now.
290.
by Juliate 2y ago
You ask me how to account for it. In accounting, that’s how, and you can get creative too.
291.
by Juliate 2y ago
When he came to the White House during WWII? Was in soldier outfit.
292.
by Juliate 2y ago
In your strategic business plan, by IFRS accounting standards (existing and developing). You have several options, account for it as lumber (but... well), or as a carbon sequestration well (so you could get carbon credits, IAS 38), or as an
293.
by Juliate 2y ago
Say that to Churchill... :D No, there's definitely no "dress code" in those circles. A dress code is specifically something you impose to lower-ranking ones. That's why Trump did not like it, and why this journalist seem
294.
by Juliate 2y ago
Funny how you finally regurgitate the Kremlin's talking points... Ukraine had 0 chances from the start? But how come Russia couldn't get Kiev in 3 days as announced in Feb 22? How come Russia needs to ask North Korea for soldiers
295.
by Juliate 2y ago
It is not a matter of concurrence. The European market is going to be a closed, dead market to US technology. We in Europe would never have invested so massively to rely on USSR or post-2008 Russia software/hardware tech, for obvious r
296.
by Juliate 2y ago
That's a very limited (XIXth century?) perspective. A forest (like, anything) has economic value, as soon as you get people to adopt/believe in it. A forest may even have a greater economic value than the lumber it could produce,
297.
by Juliate 2y ago
And what is striking is that, so far, China is effectively defeating the USA as the world leader, piece by piece, without firing a shot. Or at least, has a golden opportunity window to do so within the next 2/3 years, while Trump/
298.
by Juliate 2y ago
There's another point changing, but that's not specific to Apple, to its investment towards developers, and to its "exigence" of quality; it's related to all US technology. While it may not have the same perspective
299.
by Juliate 2y ago
> And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now? They are. Commercially first. Through technology second (the dependance of the world upon US software and hardware technology is the perfect kill switch - and the scale and pace
300.
by Juliate 2y ago
China can only support Russia in some specific, not too invasive ways. If structural points of a country break, there's no support recipe for that. Financial and economic weaknesses are also working against Putin and his team from _wit

More ›