ericmay

49 ms·

871.
by ericmay 7mo ago
You're trying to assert this big claim about freedom because some users can't I guess run more than 2 VMs on their MacBook Pro. Since we don't care we're not trying, we just gave up, we're serfs even. Well you&#x2
872.
by ericmay 7mo ago
You’re just living under the illusion of freedom. You are completely dependent on the decisions of others and their good graces for all of your computing needs, from the silicon to the Linux distro you use. You’re just drawing an arbitrary
873.
by ericmay 7mo ago
On the other hand I’m very conveniently enjoying my experience, I don’t have to waste time screwing with stuff I have no interest in screwing with - like the OP’s examples, and if I want to run Linux I’ll just install it and do what I want
874.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Seems like they prefer those platforms and perhaps the algorithm works better for their goals. Maybe they'll grow users over time and it'll be better for the EFF on a post/engagement ratio. Maybe more engaging users are on th
875.
by ericmay 7mo ago
It just seems like they are unhappy with the algorithm, and like any customer for any service you can cancel service, say why you are canceling service, and move to alternatives especially when your concerns aren't addressed. Then agai
876.
by ericmay 7mo ago
It's certainly an untenable idea, and while I'd agree that the US isn't the best beacon of governance today, I'd also argue that the EU as a whole has not been either and most of the problems are obscured from English-sp
877.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> The sanctions are gone or heavily weakened so their can sell their oil to the world instead of selling it to China at a relative loss Just a reminder you were wrong about this part: (a lot of equipment on both sides). Secondly the regi
878.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno This isn't a lifting of sanctions in the manner you meant or was being discussed. If anything it's the opposite! The US said we'll let you sell oi
879.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> By your own logic, just about anyone can do this. It doesn't really make any sense in practice. What makes the Strait any more ours than Russia's or China's or Belgium's? By this logic of the world, every country in
880.
by ericmay 7mo ago
No worries, sorry if I wasn't clear as well. To your point, I didn't really think a ceasefire would last long anyway because neither side has any interest in changing their perspective and at the end of the day the US holds the up
881.
by ericmay 7mo ago
We could just raise the prices until it was financially viable. Just like Iran, we don't need to spend a bunch of money, we can just copy what they do. > The US will never recoup their losses from this unwinnable folly of a war. Not
882.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Now you're changing the subject from Iran will charge ships to use the Straight and the US will agree to it, to "Iran will receive some sort of economic benefit". You even said Oman would be part of this scheme and are incapa
883.
by ericmay 7mo ago
How would that work if the Gulf Countries formed human chains around the desalination plants? Iran can't strike civilian targets right? ;)
884.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Missile launchers, projectile launchers, doesn't matter. They fire and then in response they are on the receiving end of a US missile. You know we like detect the launches right? Of course Iran can move them around and conceal them and
885.
by ericmay 7mo ago
US -> Stop launching missiles by 8PM ET for two weeks or we'll bomb you severely. Iran -> Ok we will agree to that. The situation in the Straight already occurred. The US doesn't give a hoot about the short term economic bas
886.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Via BBC: This isn't answering what I asked though. This is a statement of Iranian talking points but there is no agreement, the US hasn't "capitulated", nor have further talks taken place. Nobody has agreed to pay I
887.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation. Which negotiators from official channels have state
888.
by ericmay 7mo ago
So you know from reading those 10 points that the US isn't going to agree to them. That Iran posited them and the US says sure we can start with this as a basis for negotiation does not mean that the US agreed to Iran's demands
889.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Also, the US lost some very very high value units that it no longer has the ability to rebuild (cough, AWACS, cough). We can build them if we want since we built them before. But the US is likely moving away from AWACS toward other pla
890.
by ericmay 7mo ago
There's no chance Venezuela or Cuba will try and get nuclear weapons. They lack not only the capabilities to do so, nor the finances, and the US would destroy any attempt very quickly. It's a different ball game in the western hem
891.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation. https://www.voiceofemirates.com/en&#
892.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Where are you getting this idea that anyone is paying Iran? Genuinely confused about this. The only thing that has happened is that the US made Iran open the Straight up for two weeks in exchange for a pause in bombing. Nothing else has bee
893.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> ...where, presumably, your understanding of "adult" is whether or not they align with the US? No, bad assumption. I think about these things for myself though of course nobody is immune to their cultural biases, whether that&
894.
by ericmay 7mo ago
They won't be paying, no worries there. But separately that excuses attacking actual military infrastructure, it doesn't excuse intentionally attacking civilian targets as Iran has demonstrably done. You can be pro-IRGC and be cri
895.
by ericmay 7mo ago
It's so fascinating to read comments like this and realize we live in completely different worlds, wouldn't you agree? On one hand, I see the US parked 3 aircraft carriers outside of Iran, loaded up ground-based bombers, blew up m
896.
by ericmay 7mo ago
The US just forced Iran to stop launching missiles at ships in the Straight in exchange for halting bombing operations.
897.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination. Just to be clear, there won't be any tolls on the Straight. If I had a way to make you put up money on this
898.
by ericmay 7mo ago
> Then why was Trump demanding that Iran “open the fuckin’ Strait”? It’s a figure of speech. The Straight is open. There are no ships besides the US Navy and those which it allows to transit the Straight. But ships are worried about pote
899.
by ericmay 7mo ago
Ok we control it too. We can turn off the flow at will. We have 3 aircraft carriers plus a bunch of bases. No ship passes through the straight unless we say so. We should charge actually. Maybe a toll of, say, $2,000,000 until we recoup our
900.
by ericmay 7mo ago
I’m not going to litigate World War II use of atomic weapons, but suffice to say their usage was justified both morally and strategically. > leaders decided to kill a head of state and bomb a school full of children Iran murdered 30,000

More ›