ericmay

43 ms·

781.
by ericmay 6mo ago
At the end of the day they are private websites and the owners get to decide all of that stuff. Start your own, or just stop posting and let such folks have their echo chambers. One of our problems in society is that folks seem to think the
782.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Sure, but you can step outside of an American context and still recognize that we shouldn’t support these authoritarian regimes.
783.
China pushes EU capitals to scrap 'Made in Europe' law or face retaliation(euronews.com)
13 points by ericmay 6mo ago|3 comments
784.
by ericmay 6mo ago
This is awful and perhaps what is most awful is that this is the headline folks see, then they have a gut-reaction that because this project is so fucked up that all transit projects must be like this. And of course, there's the fun
785.
by ericmay 6mo ago
I'm with you on the slippery slope argument. I do mean that I think we would solve most problems with just an implementation on social media. In the US for buying games online we've had age verification for a long time. For in-sto
786.
by ericmay 6mo ago
I doubt they need that to identify you. There are also lots of other problems like algorithmic manipulation. But also just stop using these junky websites. Everyone always complains about Meta doing this, TikTok doing that, and it's li
787.
by ericmay 6mo ago
That's the cynical view, yes, but we can see educational standards and performance going down in the United States, we have seen plenty of scientific and medical studies showing problems with children and more specifically teenagers us
788.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Just requiring it for social media companies is probably enough of a win to not have to pursue any further. We require age verification for sports betting and things like that, I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same or some vari
789.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Thanks for the correction! I totally goofed on that one. I appreciate it.
790.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> would you consider US Steel factories, universities that do research for the military, factories or companies that make components that go into US weapons, apartment buildings where one military leader lives as military or civilian inf
791.
by ericmay 6mo ago
I speak for myself, not my entire country. Part of the problem here is that folks have become so angry about Donald Trump that they've forgotten the broader picture. Taking out Maduro, taking action to stop Iran's regime, and more
792.
by ericmay 6mo ago
No, I don't mean to imply that. I meant to understand what the OP thinks Iran will stop doing and what they think the US should stop doing.
793.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Sure. So let's say Iran stops building up massive amounts of missiles, funding these terrorist groups, stops pursuing a nuclear weapon, stops mass killing of its own civilians, and stops helping Russia prosecute its war against Ukraine
794.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Why would the US need to fund and build out an alternative stack? ASML is de facto controlled by the United States. Of course, having competitors is probably a good thing...
795.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable. > To pr
796.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> threatened civilisation destruction Iran threatens to erase Israel and the United States off the map pretty much daily. So I just don't care that Trump did the same back to them. If they don't like threats like that, perhaps
797.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asy
798.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> It is an admission that US protection was always a paper tiger. Perhaps in the 1960s it meant something, but Iran has shattered the illusion that Washington has any credible defense of the country. sigh No, it's not. There are 3
799.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way. They were always in harm's way. The war could
800.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Yea there is some truth to that. The US is still in a wartime economy and cultural mode of thinking post-WWII (military budget, highway and infrastructure build, cultural characteristics around guns [1] and such). The downside is the degrad
801.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> the US petrodollar promise to protect UAE states from aggression in exchange for trade in USD could not be upheld Well the war is still ongoing, and Iran's regime is already feeling the pain of the blockade [1]. Pricing oil in Yua
802.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Not much, none of those cases from the US resulted in disappearing the founders. The US is a nation of laws, no matter how imperfect. Stark contrast to the CCP.
803.
by ericmay 6mo ago
They do have export control laws and such, but based on current and past behavior China’s Communist Party doesn’t need those laws to disappear people or create crimes and then make people guilty of said crimes. Worth mentioning though that
804.
by ericmay 6mo ago
No I'm not ignoring Israel, I'm just evaluating Israel in context. Have they done shitty things? FOR SURE. Does that excuse Iran and Hamas with respect to the October massacre? No absolutely not. But play stupid games, win stupid
805.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical. I didn't suggest it was purely non-proliferation (I'm assuming you are talking about the war itself) - I was just resp
806.
by ericmay 6mo ago
Ok then all presidents were acting as kings or King George was just acting more like a president. > It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is. Yes I agree
807.
by ericmay 6mo ago
This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran can obviously hide nuclear
808.
by ericmay 6mo ago
We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification. The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.
809.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is
810.
by ericmay 6mo ago
> Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom. That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's

More ›