133arc585

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read my edited footnote. I do not fully agree with the claim itself either.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.

[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  1. Strong nuclear force: holds the nucleus of an atom together
  2. Weak nuclear force: responsible for radioactive decay
  3. Electromagnetic force: of charged particles
  4. Gravitational force: attractive force between objects with mass
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Right so that's entirely meaningless. Read my comment again. I didn't say they don't steal tech, what I said was two-fold:

  1. Every country with manufacturing ability steals tech. Therefore basing whether you trust a country/company on that factor is worthless.
  2. There are some fields, such as networking tech made by Huawei, where they can't possibly be stealing tech, because they're at the forefront, ahead of all competitors.

You took the one very specific thing I didn't say in my comment (namely, that they don't steal tech), and decided to just shit out a bunch of links saying they do. Yet, you didn't address any of the points that I did make, such as saying that is a meaningless angle to look at this from.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is why countries are banning use of their tech being anywhere near government communications.

No, that's also racism and xenophobia. They spread propaganda about supposed backdoors in network hardware, but can never actually point to any. If there's no exfiltration, you aren't "giving them access to your data".

I have zero trust with a nation that actively steals from any nation it can get away with.

Considering a lot of Chinese network hardware, specifically Huawei, is at the literal forefront of technological development, continually developing and producing the fastest devices with the highest throughput, etc., it is false to say they're just stealing their tech. They're beating out all the countries you could posit that they're stealing tech from. Moreover, if you're basing your supposed trust in a tech manufacturing company/country based on whether or not they steal tech secrets, what countries could you possible trust? The USA steals tech through (government enacted) corporate espionage against firms competing with firms in the USA[^1][^2]. You'd be hard pressed to find any country with tech manufacturing that isn't engaging in corporate espionage.

[^1]: Edward Snowden says NSA engages in industrial espionage [^2]: NSA is also said to have spied on the French economy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Call that tin foil hat syndrome or whatever.

Racism. It's racism and xenophobia.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

From the rest of your comment history? Yes, it's entirely believable. It's more surprising that you're walking it back, really.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Lovely racism!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I am not joking.

You might not be joking but you are assuming. Do you have a link to a statement by a site admin that says explicitly that is what it stands for? Otherwise you're just speculating, and there are other reasons someone would have chosen .ml besides it standing for that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're not just looking for conversation.

Unless you get a response from the site admins, anyone's answer is pure speculation. No one is going to be able to say, definitively, why .ml was chosen, except the site admins.

My theory is: .ml domains used to be offered for free. So they made lemmy.ml for free, as it was just a toy project. Then, they upgraded to the paid .ml domain (which is how they managed to avoid the recent free .ml purge).

The "its Marxism-Leninism" could be true, but unless you get an answer from a site admin, everyone asserting that it's true is talking out of their ass. They don't know any more than you or I know.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you support the death penalty then you believe either:

  • The government's judgements are infallible and it would never falsely execute an innocent person, OR
  • You are okay with the government executing an innocent person.

I definitely don't think they're infallible, as there are loads of cases where people are exonerated only after serving decades in prison, or after their death. And I'm definitely not okay with the government executing an innocent person.

Then, if you somehow aren't satisfied with that, you can make pragmatic arguments including how implementing the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There was also evidence that these balloons had equipment on board that did not line up with what is expected on a weather balloon.

Do you mind sharing your evidence? Because that's not what was officially reported by the Pentagon. It was reported that it had off-the-shelf components (i.e., exactly what you'd expect on a weather balloon), and didn't collect or transmit anything.

Chinese spy balloon didn’t collect intelligence as it flew over US: Pentagon:

The Chinese spy balloon that was shot down over the Atlantic Ocean in early February was built, at least partly, using American off-the-shelf parts, a U.S. official has confirmed to ABC News. [...] Later Thursday, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said that the balloon not only did not transmit data back to China -- it never collected any.

You'll note that media still insists on using the phrase "spy balloon" when it was just a weather balloon. They even said as much, and they still use fearmongering phrasing because they know it serves their narrative.

view more: ‹ prev next ›