You know what? I never thought I’d say this but I’m with Ukraine on this one.
This whole counter offensive insanity is so militarily nonsensical that it had to have been mounted to please the West with a “win” so that they’d stay in the war. Real Chiang Kai Shek committing the best of the KMT army to Shanghai to impress the Westerners energy.
The West is standing on the sidelines, supplying just enough equipment to keep the embers going and judging the ordinary Ukrainians going to their deaths by their hundreds.
Fuck the clowns in charge in Kiev and fuck the Nazi militias obviously. But at this point the men being sent to the front are old men and boys dragged off the street against their will. Sending them to die to appease the West is fucking sick.
Ukraine has been invaded. Are you suggesting they do not fight back?
NATO is not war. No NATO country has been attacked. Engaging against Russia directly would put NATO at war with a nuclear power. I cannot imagine that this is your plan.
Not just “the West”, but everybody is on the sidelines as far as direct engagement goes. Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can. Some to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Most have imposed crippling sanctions. So. “sidelines” is a bit misleading from that perspective.
Even Russia’s allies are “on the sidelines”. You certainly do not see much overt support from China. They have even maintained ( in fact stepped-up ) diplomatic relation with Ukraine.
Or are you trying to imply that the underlying cause of everything here is something other than Russia’s continued invasion? Everybody could truly go back to the sidelines if Russia just left.
The only other path is for Ukraine to win. Are you supporting that or not?
Ukraine has plenty of opportunities to win. It could have chosen to chart a more balanced position between the EU and Russia. It could have given the Donbass some independence referenda and just let them go. It could have actually tried to adhere to the numerous Minsk Agreements to deescalate and prevent war. It could have negotiated for peace while the Russians were pulling back after its previously more successful counter offensives.
But each time its leaders ignored the off ramp to peace and pursued delusional maximalist goals, egged on by promises of EU and NATO membership which even Zelensky acknowledged publically were just carrots dangled in front of Ukraine.
Now there’s no pathway to any sort of Ukrainian victory and the most realistic scenarios all involve Ukraine permanently giving up Donbas and Crimea. The only difference between the likely outcome now and just giving them a referendum in 2014 is a couple hundred thousand Ukrainian graves.
I’d respect the EU and NATO more if they had actually followed through with their promises to Ukraine instead of this Charlie Brown football bullshit.
If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.
Zelenksy tried to surrender to prevent further deaths, and Boris Johnson refused to let that meeting happen because NATO isn’t finished using Ukranians as crash test dummies.
Zelenskyy tried to surrender and Boris Johnson stopped him?! Ooooookay… He maaaybe (all “unnamed” sources) expressed an opinion, which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.
To cast that as “Ukraine was stopped from surrendering” is just obscene … and yet another Kremlin talking point.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
Foreign Affairs is a Kremlin propaganda outlet now?
Or do only people you disagree with require sources, so that way you can keep gleefully believing whatever the fucking and spewing it everywhere you go
Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia
Hmm let’s look at the source on that: Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukranian language paper headquartered in Kyiv, owned by a Ukranian investment company also headquartered in Kyiv.
You do understand how propaganda works, right? It works by zooming in on molehills until they appear like mountains. So while I wouldn’t rule out that Johnson the Idiot said something unwise to Zelensky government, I also don’t automatically think that it means Zelenski was “forced to not give up”.
Okay, but it is literally a propaganda source that is aligned with Ukraine lmao. We know it is propaganda, we are presenting it because even the ukrainian propaganda acknowledges it as factual.
You are not immune to propaganda.
Who gives a shit what you “wouldn’t rule out” when even western media goes against you? Get your head out of your ass
I also don’t automatically think that it means Zelenski was “forced to not give up”.
Ukraine negotiates ceasefire.
BJ tells Ukraine to not go through with it.
Ukraine does not go through with it.
Why else would Ukraine have reversed course if not for one of its NATO puppetmasters commanding it to? Either it’s that, or BJ making a really impassioned argument for sending a bunch of Ukranians to an early grave and Zelensky fell for it, or Zelensky just changed his mind all on his own and the timing is a pure coincidence.
Considering there’s people in this thread complaining were spreading Russian propaganda by posting a press release FROM UKRAINE I’m starting to think their accusations may not be entirely in good faith.
which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.
If the UK is convinced that you can’t negotiate with dictators, how does the UK keep entering into arms sales agreements with Saudi Arabia? Do the contracts just appear out of thin air at BAE?
I am referencing to a dictator that is hellbent on invasion of other countries. We had plenty of relations with Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine and they were a dictatorship before. We have plenty of relationships with China now and they are a de facto dictatorship.
The Saudis used their British weapons to bomb Yemen and create one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in recent memory. The UK sold weapons to Saudi before, during, and after the Saudi involvement in Yemen.
Perhaps Russia should have merely bombed Ukraine to the point of starvation. Then they’d be a good dictatorship that the UK would be happy to carry out business negotiations with.
What’s going on in Yemen is incredibly complicated. I’m not condoning everything Saudi Arabia is doing there, far from it, but to call it out as a good vs evil war is frankly a simpleton view. Saudi is bad there. Everyone is bad there. It’s a huge mess. But I think it’s important to recognise that the Saudis aim is to restore order in a neighbourhood country, to prevent Iranian influence from growing and to suppress violent Islamic fundamentalism.
What’s going on in Ukraine is incredibly complicated. I’m not condoning everything Russia is doing there, far from it, but to call it out as a good vs evil war is frankly a simpleton view. Russia is bad there. Everyone is bad there. It’s a huge mess. But I think it’s important to recognise that the Russians’ aim is to restore order in a neighbourhood country, to prevent American influence from growing and to suppress violent Neo-Nazi extremism.
I think sending a nazi-ish mercenarygroup into the meat grinder against an even more nazi-ish group so that they both wipe each other out (like what happened in Bahkmut) is good actually
They did say saudis bad tho, we should give the same nuance we expect from others. I don’t suppose the commenter you’re replying to supports Saudi arabia, it’s just odd that the nuance they’re seemingly willing to grant the saudis wont be given to Russia
No, Ukraine has a specific military campaign (the bombardment of Donbas) that he opposes along with the expansion of NATO. He has very clear demands, whatever you think of them.
That was initiated by pro-Russian insurgents and has led to lots of death on both sides. It’s not like the opposing forces haven’t been bombarding either. It’s like if England started attacking the North during the US Civil War because they retaliated against the South attacking them, and of course they both speak English. I’m guessing you also believe in the Russian propaganda line about a genocide happening there, even though there’s no proof? It was obviously just an excuse for Russia to get more control over Ukrainian territory after their Russian puppet President got ran out of the country.
Putin had denazification as a demand. That’s not super clear at all. His clear demands are Ukraine staying out of NATO, which it was already up for agreeing to do, and surrendering territory, which is obviously the one it doesn’t want to do, because no country would want to do that. That’s the problem one but hopefully they come to something eventually.
It’s bizarre to me that most hexbear users are less anti-war than some protestors and TV journalists that live in Russia itself who want their own country to leave. I agree with you guys on so many other stuff, but I can’t get behind supporting the aggressor in a war, especially as they’re shelling hospitals and apartment buildings.
The Donbas secessionists want to leave because the Maidan coup started pushing the country towards Ukrainian ethnonationalism, and eastern Ukraine is very Russian. Russia did back them, but Putin did not fabricate a popular opposition to the Maidan government.
Denazification is a pretty clear objective when the entity that you are seeking to denazify has battalions that are openly and explicitly Nazi as part of their doctrine. Purge those units, prosecute former members, ban Nazi hate crimes (like greasing bullets with pig fat) and ban Nazi symbols like Swastikas and Wolfsangles. It’s really not difficult, the US military nearly passes that bar and even the German military does (though it has closeted Nazi cliques).
Ya but we’re not in a war for our very lives. Hopefully they can get around to doing it after the war. Russia also had a Nazi problem with the Wagner group and a growing antisemitism problem but for some reason you can extend critical support to them but not Ukraine?
I was talking about Russia demanding it, not Ukraine doing it of their own volition. You are genuinely delusional if you think Ukraine is interested in such a thing. The Azov Battalion formed as a paramilitary circa 2014 to spearhead the aggression on Donbas, and since then became an official part of the military, still a couple years before the invasion, along with a few other explicitly Nazi groups. This, along with lionizing Bandera, pushing holodomor shit, and advancing ethnonationalist policy shows a clear trend. In terms of “state adoption of Nazi shit” Ukraine is easily the world leader and has been for some time, even over much worse and more destructive countries like the US.
Wagner is a PMC organization. There are Nazis in it, but it’s not a doctrinally Nazi organization nor is it actually part of the Russian government like Azov is Ukraine. Russia likewise isn’t pushing fascist hoaxes or ethnonationalist policies (however much we might both dislike Putin’s revanchist rhetoric).
But I think it’s important to recognise that the Saudis aim is to restore order in a neighbourhood country, to prevent Iranian influence from growing and to suppress violent Islamic fundamentalism.
“Restoring order is when you bomb hospitals and exacerbate famines and the more people that die, the more order it is.”
The Saudis are committing genocide in Yemen. No ifs, no buts. To claim they have a good reason to be out there doing it is genocide apologia.
Holy shit man just realize you have no ideology or clue, stop talking and educate yourself on what the actual fuck is going on in the world. It would be a far more productive use of your time.
"It’s not clear how Zelenskyy himself responded to Johnson’s reported push to halt peace talks. On the same day of the British prime minister’s arrival in Kyiv, Zelenskyy told the Associated Press in an interview that “no one wants to negotiate with a person or people who tortured this nation.” “It’s all understandable,” he continued. “And as a man, as a father, I understand this very well.” But, Zelenskyy added, “we don’t want to lose opportunities, if we have them, for a diplomatic solution.”
Also the only time the word “surrender” shows up is in a quote here where it was the west telling Zelensky to surrender and flee.
If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.
This has literally never been true in any war ever. Foreign occupations rarely tend to be bloodless and I doubt a Russian one would have been an exception. At no point were any of the peace talks about Ukraine’s surrender – only renouncing it’s NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Russian troops, as per:
“In the weeks ahead of Johnson’s April 9 visit, high-level diplomatic talks held in Belarus and Turkey had failed to yield a diplomatic breakthrough, though reports in mid-March indicated that Russian and Ukrainian delegations “made significant progress” toward a 15-point peace deal that would involve Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow’s troops.”
At no point was surrender on the table - that would have likely lead to Zelenksy’s detention and execution in the early days of the invasion.
I don’t think Zelensky was too keen on capitulating to Vladimir Putin’s demands to destroy his country, after sending in GRU hit squads to kill him and his family multiple times at the outset of the war.
Right, but it’s not like every country not filled out in green is actively supporting Russia in the same way. In terms of countries supplying Russia the way the US, NATO, and the EU are supplying Ukraine, I’m pretty sure it’s just Iran and North Korea. The US has largely failed to isolate Russia the way it wanted to, but Russia hasn’t been able to get the kind of support from its allies that Ukraine has (like, unless there have been some Chinese Type 99s tanks spotted in operation by the Russians that I hadn’t heard about, I’m not exactly tracking the front every day).
but Russia hasn’t been able to get the kind of [material] support from its allies that Ukraine has
It hasn’t needed to. Ukraine wouldn’t be a functional state at all by this point were it not for the tens of billions of dollars in aid as well as all the military equipment slowly depleting the west. Russia on the other hand, has been doing quite well in holding it’s own economically despite the sanctions and in holding the literal defensive line against all the NATO weaponry. It’s a nonsensical comparison to make.
They’ve taken arms and supplies from Iran and are currently negotiating with the DPRK. Yes, Russia is bigger and can theoretically out-last Ukraine in a war of attrition on a 1:1 basis, but you shouldn’t be hoping for something that prolongs the war.
It’s a nonsensical comparison to make.
So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia’s side.
but you shouldn’t be hoping for something that prolongs the war./
lol, what do you think I’m “hoping” for? Stating the fact that Russia can easily do what it has been doing indefinitely (but Ukraine cannot) has nothing to do with my hopes.
So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia’s side.
No one ever did any such thing, just noted that support comes in many forms other than military equipment, which Russia has mostly already covered for itself, even if it buys drone parts from Iran. Unlike Ukraine which now relies wholly and entirely on outside help for all of its material need. You changed the goalposts for what “support” means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn’t what Russia needs. You’re just trying to move the goalposts all over the place to make it seem like you have some kind of valid point, but you don’t. Even if countries are not sending unneeded tanks, Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists (including any actual leftists, even though so many western “leftists” drink deeply of their overlord’s propaganda).
You changed the goalposts for what “support” means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn’t what Russia needs.
I’m pretty sure I mentioned here or elsewhere that financial aid was being given to the Ukrainian government in order to keep their civil service paid. South Korea just approved some of that recently.
Whenever anyone in the West brings up “global support for Ukraine” that’s what they’re mostly talking about, I merely clarified that because people are operating on different definitions of what constitutes “support”. When I consider “support for Ukraine” vs “support for Russia”, I’m comparing money, arms, and diplomatic positions or comments made by a country’s leadership. When I do so, I see:
Countries supporting Ukraine with money and/or arms
Countries that have condemned the war/invasion and nothing else, maintaining their existing relations with both Ukraine and Russia while also criticizing NATO in some cases
Iran + the DPRK, plus maybe Belarus for allowing it’s territory to be used
Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists
Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line at reflexively supporting anything the United States opposes? Like, I get that the US successfully re-aligned Ukraine’s foreign policy over the last decade or two, an unequivocal and blatant expansion of US influence and control, and so a successful Russian invasion would result in undoing that American victory, but I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine being in Russia’s sphere of influence for socialists, beyond the fact that Russia isn’t the dominant world power. Is that really it? And if so, how is it beneficial to replace one imperialist domination with another?
Doesn’t it matter that Russia is arguably more of a neoliberal state in line with the domestic social, economic and political agendas of far-right parties in the US, UK, and EU, than many Western countries currently?
In what way? I think a lot of people are acting like anyone not actively sending arms or money to Ukraine must therefore be “supporting” Russia. Has the Saudi Arabian Kingdom given any weapons to Russia? Have they given any loans to plug the holes in the national budget while the country engages in open warfare? Or are they just viewing a European conflict as irrelevant to their own aims and goals?
Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can.
lmao here i am living in a 200 million people country where nobody gives a single fuck about ukraine
even more political groups and discussions rarely involve ukraine except when lula decides to own zelensky in some way, no one here cares about nato’s proxy war
even more political groups and discussions rarely involve ukraine except when lula decides to own zelensky in some way, no one here cares about nato’s proxy war
I mean why should they? Brazil as a country (you mention lula, so) isn’t in NATO so it doesn’t have an ideological reason to support Russia or Ukraine in the matter. There’s nothing to be gained geographically for Brazil either, since whoever controls Kyiv doesn’t directly impact any strategic concerns for Brazil afaik.
You say no one cares, so while I think most people in Canada and US hope that Ukraine “wins”, does that mean apathy in that regard or would you say most people are passively hoping Russia achieves its war goals?
i think most people here are just apathetic towards it, yea
as for smaller, more involved groups, you have the english-speaking libs and the middle class which are just nyt-brained to the core (on every single issue, so you can guess their opinions), and the communists and PT libs (with opinions that are pretty close to ours: “war is bad, putin is shit, and we should stay away from the whole thing, but hopefully the end result of this one is a weaker, and not a stronger, american/nato empire”)
the communists and PT libs (with opinions that are pretty close to ours: “war is bad, putin is shit, and we should stay away from the whole thing, but hopefully the end result of this one is a weaker, and not a stronger, american/nato empire”)
All sounds very reasonable, tbh even the libs and middle-class positions make sense to me if they are plugged into the same media as US libs.
The US was clearly trying to manipulate Ukraine’s efforts from the moment they realized Kyiv wouldn’t be lost in a week. I’m always pleased to see them rebuked. Even better when they are manipulated by their own strings, instead of vice versa.
(Although I’d rather see an end to the bloodshed, and the prevention of a prolonged quagmire that would see expendable workers thrown to the grinder for years to come.)
Sure, but I was referring specifically to the efforts in response to the 2022- campaign. The geopolitical context changed significantly from 2014 and the US’ machinations are likewise organized into a new campaign, so far as I can tell.
okay guys , so since this hole federation stuff your Pro Imperial Wrong Takes comes my way , it must be corrected …
this is Taiwans Air Identification Zone https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/96f46344-321a-40b3-b066-3b697afe616b.jpeg it is a Bullshit leftover that spans so vast over china that it simply can not be not violated ,… theirby producing the most wonderfull “Permanent - Saturaton - Propaganda” of China Bad Bakround noise for the Imperial core audience in their Echo Chambers .
PS: this is where real Journalist go in the west , when they start beeing critical of non approved subjects.
“Good thing propaganda only ever happens to other people”
withdrawing support for Taiwan in the still-distant future.
They’re going to tip the Republic of China in to the ocean as soon as they’ve stolen all of TSCM’s productive capacity. That’s all this was ever about. They’re building chip fabs in Arizona right now. As soon as the US can produce it’s own Chips the RoC is… going to go right back to tense but peaceful relations with the mainland like they had before DC started waving it’s grand imperial [redacted] around.
Yeah, you can say in a meaningful sense that the US co-founded Taiwan. I personally think that part of the reason the US wants to recreate Taiwan’s manufacturing capacity is that it makes Taiwan much more expendable, meaning it can be used for military provocations and even war (as some US generals are openly calling for or predicting) without risking the loss of an irreplaceable economic asset to the US.
I thought the US Taiwanese support had more to do with keeping an open lane in East China Sea? If they can win over Taiwan somehow then that would be completely closed off in a potential future conflict.
a bridge that had collapsed nearly a decade earlier.
Lawyers for the Paxsons allege that several people have tried to flag the washed-out bridge to Google and have included email correspondence between a Hickory resident who tried to use the “suggest an edit” feature in 2020 to get the company to address the issue. Google never responded to the suggestion, allege attorneys.
It’s collapsed a decade ago and they’ve even tried to get Google to mark it so on their maps, unsuccessfully. Google must have some responsibility to the maps and routing.
Google Maps gave incorrect routing advice resulting (on their part) in a person’s death. It was a decade out of date, it had been brought to their attention and they did nothing. They still used that data in their routing. Obviously they have some sort of responsibility here imo.
There are hundreds of sources for map data and I bet you most of them aren’t up to date.
Idk why you think I’d think differently if it was some other company, routing provider etc. If it was a municipal roadside map that showed that you’re free to drive off that bridge then it would be the same. Or even a private roadside tourism map.
Bizarre thinking. Some rest stop owner puts up a tourist map pointing someone off a bridge and they wouldn’t hold any responsibility in your mind, not a tiny bit of moral responsibility if someone drove off the bridge while following the map’s advice?
You don’t think corporations have any sort of moral responsibility? That’s fucked up, ngl. Of course corporations should have moral responsibility for their actions (or inaction).
This is about legal liability.
I said “some responsibility”. You mentioned legal liability. I think there’s lots more to responsibility than just who is legally liable. To me that seems like a no brainer.
This is an article about being sued. If your want to change the scope you should be specific to what you’re expanding too.
And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever. I expect them to act within the legal limits of the country of operation and what public opinion will tolerate. To expect anything otherwise is silly.
I just talked about responsibility. It by default is a wider thing than just legal responsibility.
And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever.
That’s fucking grim.
what public opinion will tolerate
What is that public opinion based on if not in part on moral judgement?
The public is happy to buy from companies that engage in unethical behavior. There is a higher bar that is tolerated before consumers will stop purchasing products however.
I just meant that that’s often morality based, as in general public holds companies to some moral standard. Often it’s a fairly low standard though, as you’ve pointed out.
As much as I disagree with the idea that corporations don’t have a moral responsibility I suggest you read their comment anyway, since otherwise the convo doesn’t make much sense.
Sure am. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone giving someone directions would have zero part in the eventual accident when those directions were faulty.
They obviously have responsibility for their part… 🤦♂️
You are moving the bar
You previously replied to me asking if they have no part and said “that is the only logical conclusion”… If you didn’t get what I meant you should’ve probably mentioned this moving the bar then and not after you gave a silly answer to the question. Better look if nothing else.
If the bridge had collapsed a few hours ago. No one would know. Due to this being a real risk. Just like anyone reading an older paper map. The driver of any car is entirely responsible for looking where they are going. Not some 3rd party navigation source.
Evidence that google is crap. In no way shape or form makes them legally responsible for your visual attention while driving. You are.
And google has faced these cases in a number of nations. Through out the erly addoption of GPS navigation in the 2000s. We saw many cases of folks driving into lakes and rivers. Because they were stupid enouth to trust the GPS system. Rather then use the minimal common sense of watching where they are driving.
Google map quest and all others never faced and requirement to take responsibility for drivers inability to drive.
After a decade. The local authority bears responsibility for failing to signpost. Or hell fix th fucking bridge. But even then nope if your driving, how long its been down. In no way relieves you of the standard job. Of watching where the hell you are going. Just means the local auth need to lose there jobs/ 10 years ago.
Guess what. Old folks crossing the road and falling over. Can happen with little notice. But if you come around a corner. And are not paying attention to the road. The fact that a little old lady fell and knocked herself out. Guess who is legally responsible for failing to drive safly when you crush the poor ladies head.
As someone with mobility and vision issues. Who is at high risk of losing my balance when travelling. It really fucks me off how many drivers fail to realise. They are responsible for driving a multi ton potential killing machine. And share the environment with the whole of society.
As soon as they abdicate that responsibility. Thay are basically saying people like me must remain locked in our houses.
Of course they had a part in the death. They routed him over a broken bridge. That’s their part of it. And not fixing the map after being told about the issue. Thinking they didn’t have any part in this seems bizarre.
The map been out of date is not criminal there’s no legal requirement that maps are accurate. However there is a legal requirement that a road is blocked off.
It’s the state that’s ultimately responsible not some GPS company. The above response right, how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for? Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.
“It’s not criminal so they didn’t have any part or responsibility” is something I don’t understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality’s/landowner’s part is how they hadn’t closed to road, put up signage etc. Google’s part is the bad routing. Driver’s part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn’t make sense to me.
how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for
Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google’s side for not having made the change.
Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.
Of course there’s responsibility for the bad routing, even if they’re not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.
You're expectations of Google would be like demanding that the map company who printed maps must provide a free, updated map every time that the roads change. Life doesn't work that way - sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.
No it isn’t? My expectation is that if someone guides someone poorly then of course they have some responsibility and part in their death. Honestly it’s simple as that and it just seems like common sense.
A driver has ultimate responsibility for where they drive their car, that’s not up for debate.
Google is providing guidance, sure, but the driver, by virtue of being present, having eyes and a brain, and controlling the fucking vehicle is the one responsible for where the vehicle goes.
You may have a (very good) point if this was a self driving car and Google was partially or wholly responsible for the actual motion of the vehicle.
But that’s not what happened.
Google’s guidance is nothing more than them saying, “Based on our data, this is the route we think you should take.” Obviously the driver has better data on local conditions than Google.
That being said, local authorities are to blame for improper signage and safety features. While Google isn’t responsible for road conditions and safety, some government or another absolutely is, and they are absolutely a valid target for a lawsuit, as they should be.
That you think Google shoulders blame in this is actually kind of a sad commentary on how some of society views personal responsibility.
I just told you how you misunderstood what I expected and you still insist on understanding me. That’s funny.
Google is providing guidance, sure, but the driver, by virtue of being present, having eyes and a brain, and controlling the fucking vehicle is the one responsible for where the vehicle goes.
There’s not just one person responsible for this. Driver, municipality, Google are all responsible in different amounts.
Google’s guidance is nothing more than them saying, “Based on our data, this is the route we think you should take.”
Yeah and they’re responsible for giving bad guidance, same as the municipality is responsible for not closing down the route and the driver for mistakes they made.
That you think Google shoulders blame in this is actually kind of a sad commentary on how some of society views personal responsibility.
You completely misunderstood me. I take part of the responsibility (lol) for it.
NAL, but I think part of it is that Google does update its map regularly (you see the latest edition whenever you access it online)
Where Google arguably failed was, despite having a system to report discrepancies which people used for this collapsed bridge, Google failed to make the routing changes that could be reasonably expected by 5+ years. They could have used some combination of satellite images, user reports, the Google car etc.
Even if you were to compare it to paper media: If you published a new edition twice a year, you had incorrect information, people reported it to you yet you still failed to correct it for 10+ editions and it causes harm to someone, then as a publisher you may be liable.
If I buy a map I don't just drive down the road not looking out the window. The bridge could have washed out that night I would never expect a map to cover that a map is for planning a route...I would be pissed off that it had led me down a dead end and I had to stop and turn around so I might ask for money back on the map but the death and driving off a road is not on the map
Section 3: Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.
You can’t just guide someone off a cliff and say “hey, I said I wasn’t sure if that’s the route, so I have zero responsibility”. The idea that that terms of service absolve them of any part in it is just lol
It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river
I think that might’ve hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn’t necessarily a simple case of “should’ve stopped if he couldn’t see” either.
In any case, even though the “issue” is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I’m just saying that (imo obviously) there’s other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn’t happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.
Since we don’t know the specifics it’s impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I’d say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.
I agree entirely. The local authorities should clearly block off and indicate hazards like this.
the headline only mentions google, because that’s the sensational part, but the article mentions that the suit does name other defendants. yes, more than one party is culpable. this death required several parties being negligent in order to pull off.
Huh? I mean I’d argue that the local authorities have the most responsibility in this case. I don’t really think google is too responsible here. I guess you could make an argument that people tried reporting it but ultimately the local authorities should have clearly blocked it off. It’s really no different than using an old physical map; it shows you the way but things change so you always need to use discretion. I can’t count how many times I’ve followed my GPS only to be blocked by construction or something along those lines. In those situations, there needs to be clear signage or a barricade which is basically what I’m arguing is applicable here.
i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway. you’re attacking a straw man, and the real man isn’t even alive to defend himself. every time you go around a blind corner at more than 5kph, you’re trusting that nobody built a brick wall across the roadway since your last visit. it seems far more likely that, due to the particular geometry of the situation and the generally poor visibility noted in the article, that he did not realize until it was too late.
i seriously doubt that he saw that the bridge was out, and then chose to trust the gps anyway
Well yeah, in the article it says that visibility was bad. I was more just making the point that discretion is important when using a GPS. That said, I’d say that the local authorities fucked up the most. A bridge collapsed a decade ago and it’s not blocked off? It should be obvious that you can’t drive that way.
As your own link states: Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney. Use of and access to any of the resources contained within Ironclad’s site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Ironclad.
I’d say municipality/landowners, Google and the driver themself.
Municipality, land owners for not marking it, fixing it, making sure nobody mistakenly drives there. Google for routing him over it. Also the driver too for their part. Though not knowing the specifics it’s hard to say how much responsibility everyone has exactly but I’d say most of it lies on the municipality/landowners. Depending on who is supposed to mark those things over there.
Not necessarily. Firstly because I don’t actually think there is any requirement that maps are 100% accurate, Google never a claim made anywhere that they are flawless. Secondly because if the city / town / local authority hasn’t put up signs, it’s entirely possible that they haven’t informed map makers either.
So map makers are not responsible for inaccuracies in their map, and even if they were responsible, they may not have been told.
There’s levels of culpability and in this scenario Google seem to be right at the bottom, if on the list at all.
Or not wearing. I just had a chat with the flying spaghetti monster, and it told me I had to stop wearing pants in public. I’ll be seriously pissed off if my lack of garments will stop me from getting an education.
He’s also really blowing those “acts of a few” out of proportion, because even those acts are not a big concern, especially compared to the horrors Israel commits.
Nailed it. I’m doing better than I ever have, and I think I should dump more into my 401k! Nope. Groceries feel like they’ve almost doubled in cost. Fucking unbundling of so much , data, or travel costs an arm and a leg in additional fees. Simple repairs to my car or parts for a mower are crazy expensive. As soon as I feel like I’ve gotten ahead, they jack up the prices to eat up my gains.
Yes. A congressional report found that nearly 50% of inflation went straight into corporate coffers. Record profits across the board. They turned the dial up until our wage gains were all gone.
the bus went over the cliff a while back. left and right are arguing if the wheels are going round and round and we’ve jumped right past the guard rails and are sailing into oblivion.
Same here , the other day I thought to myself “how the fuck did I get poor again??!!” Two years ago I was feeling pretty proud! I’m deep in the letter writing currently, one I’ll give to my employer.
Remember those stupid people in the past, drinking lead-poisoned water? At least we could just stop using lead in pipes when we found out it’s bad for us. Good luck finding anything to ingest without microplastics.
My thought exactly: it’s essentially impossible to avoid micro plastic ingestion. I have no idea how one would go about removing plastic packaging from their food supply as it’s used to package basically everything.
Small steps. I replaced my mixing bowls with stainless steel, my food storage containers that take anything warm with glass, and my drinking cup with an SS one as well. At the very least, everything looks cooler now ;)
You can interpret it that way, if you want. However, that wasn’t really what I had in mind. Just pointing out that Americans seem to love acronyms so much that it gets completely ridiculous at times. In highly technical contexts it makes sense when you’re writing documentation or articles for a very small audience.
For instance, you can shorten Green House Gasses to GHGs if you’re audience consists of climate scientists, but don’t expect the general public to know that acronym. Go ahead and shorten Volatile Organic Compounds to VOCs if you’re writing to chemists. You can talk about CMB when talking to geologists and FFPs when talking to cosmologists, but people outside those fiels probably have never heard of these things let alone the acronyms.
In normal every day situations it just doesn’t make sense, because you can’t realistically expect everyone to know all of these thousands of accornyms for thousands of more or less common items, situations and things in life.
Generally speaking, it’s a good practice to do it exactly the way you just did. It’s just that certain acronyms have already been taken. Well, technically all of them have already been taken, but some are obscure while others are familiar to the general public.
If your new acronym collides with something obscure like CMB, then who cares (apart from geologists). If you end up using somethign more familiar ones such as USB, BMW or HTC, you’re going to run into some issues. However, it migh be fun to write an article and really mess with the reader by forcing as many acronym collisions as possible.
It’s actually not used everywhere: Cellophane is quite common as its permeable to water vapour but pretty much only that. Bio-sourced (cellulose) and compostable and you’re free to throw it in paper recycling as they’re used to fishing it out of the sludge (it’s what transparent letter windows are made of). And compostable here means in your own backyard, no industrial high-temperature composting needed.
Many plastics can’t readily be replaced but cellulose and lignin based stuff is at a stage where it can fill many many roles.
Also don’t forget metal, especially stainless steel. Glass if you want to look inside. All that will need regulation as currently producers are happily externalising costs.
Now if someone would produce stailness containers that are on the same performance and general engineering level as lock&lock.
Yeah, I’m pessimistic about the huge shift we’d need to make, especially in America. But so much of that packaging is completely unnecessary. Glass jars instead of plastic tubs or bottles. If you visit some places in the UK, they don’t give you single use plastics in hotels and restaurants, though you can still buy that stuff in stores. Water is bottled in glass. Continental breakfast jams are in tiny glass jars. Some snack packages come in waxed paper bags, like what some tortilla chip brands are packaged in here in the US. Paperboard, cardboard, tins and foil. For toiletries, come countries have stores focused on sustainability where you bring your own reusable containers and they have dispensers for things like shampoo and liquid soap. Like a…soda fountain, but for cleaning products.
People are just so opposed to it here. Like aggressively opposed it it. Like eating yogurt in a glass jar instead of plastic is offensive to them. I don’t get it.
That’s true. I meant we stopped actively using them when building new houses. Though now that I think about it, even that is maybe not true everywhere. But at least it’s something you could change once you identify the problem. Microplastics have permeated everything, they can be found in the depths of the Mariana Trench. There is no getting rid of them (as far as we know).
I don’t know. Can the lead levels in plants and meat even be high enough to be dangerous for humans?
I assumed removing the lead pipes would be enough for lead while you had to remove the microplastics from every plant and animal you want to eat. But I realise I may be completely wrong.
All atoms in the biosphere cycle regularly aside from some very longstanding ones.
If you identify the chemical makeup of the monomer (corroded plastic, micro plastic, whatever you want to call it), there’s nothing stopping you from hypothetically finding or creating enzymes which can digest it. The only reason it hasn’t happened naturally yet is due to a lack of evolutionary pressure to digest the weird compounds we’ve been making up until now.
Set up farms of modified mycelium or bacteria to scrub the plastics, and stop using many or set up required end of life treatment for plastic manufacturers, and you’ll very rapidly make a dent in plastic spread.
Further, modify wild biota, such as mushrooms, bacteria, etc to have the ability to produce the same enzymes for assisting in cleanup.
Big project, yes, but technically feasible. We’ve done more extreme things.
Nice yeah. Not surprising, different mushrooms have different capacities to digest plastics as well, since mushrooms just kind if have all sorts of crazy stuff going on to let them do that.
I’d just point out that these microorganisms will definitely escape into the wild at some point and then durabilty for plastics will be similar (maybe?) to that for wood (there was also a period in time when trees evolved when microorganisms had to catch up to degrade it, presumably it was full of wood everywhere that just wasn’t rotting).
Imagine a future where your PC screen or mobile phone has an expiry date and it’s not due to planned obsolescence. Maybe that’s not so bad after all, now that I think about it.
Honestly, my mind went first to the transport industry. Cars, busses, trucks, hell even trains and bikes (ebikes would have more plastic than the classic sort though). There’s plastic in everything. For things like wiring insulation, seats, circuit boards. Maintanance on big transport rigs is sometimes spotty as it is, would love to see what happens when there’s more things that can degrade them.
I honestly like the idea, but I wonder how many things that we take for granted because of plastic would go away?
I really dislike the fact that every single thing from the food isle comes packaged in at least one layer of plastic.
But I like that I can take a vinyl pressed 40 years ago and play it.
I agree with wood, it’s a very nice material, but indoors where you have a nice controlled environment or outdoors if treated. Coming to a hardware store near you - treated plastic?
In a practical sense there are lots of things here that run in the face of this. Plastics aren’t necessarily a good source of energy, for example, so whether plastivore bacteria could ever practically decay plastics in the way you’re imagining self sufficiently is dubious. The main purpose of the wild modifications is to provide a means to digest, but that comes at the cost of energy in the enzymes being produced to do that. We see an overall economic benefit, but it may mutate out rapidly if it’s not actually providing a singular benefit to the organism.
Plastic generally already corrodes outdoors very readily. That’s the primary source of micro plastic is that exact corrosion. Those that don’t would be equivalently hard to digest.
I mean sure, if you’re talking just manipulating some cell mechanisms to produce the enzymes required for digestion like we manipulate yeasts and e. coli to make drugs - the bugs don’t actually use those for anything and they’d lose the trait out in the wild or just keep it as a vestigial mechanism in limited populations.
But I was thinking more in a sense of what happened to lignin digestion. In the end, it’s still a source of carbon that can be used as a building block and the chemical bonds can be broken up for energy, so there’s no reason to think there would be no pressure to evolve to eat the monomers once they’re there and to adapt the gene for the enzymes from ‘professional use’ to ‘personal use’ by the bugs.
Case in point - mushrooms eating fallen logs and strains of S. cerevisiae producing amylase. At some point it made ‘sense’ to just keep those and that gave them an evolutionary edge, so the trait remained. And now we have another pest on our hands - S. cerevisiae var. diastaticus, a pox on non-belgian breweries everywhere. And critters that eat improperly treated wood beams and cause unpleasantness in wood framed houses.
there’s no reason to think there would be no pressure to evolve to eat the monomers once they’re there and to adapt the gene for the enzymes from ‘professional use’ to ‘personal use’ by the bugs.
I directly address this evolutionary pressure and why there are, in fact, reasons to think it won’t behave like lignin digestion in the very comment youre responding to friend.
Lignin digestion is at the end of the day just a random set of mutations that stuck because they were useful. If they weren’t useful, to an individual organisms survival, they likely wouldn’t stick around, as might be the case with plastic digestion, and would be different fur every single plastic. The same exact method would be used for adding enzymes to their genome in yeasts as you mention or in various organisms for plastic digestion.
It’s a fair view that something forcefully introduced by us would be more of an appendix than a fully integrated digestion-feeding system, I’ll agree to that. I guess I’m being overly optimistic in my assessment regarding the integration of such a mutation in stable populations and the link from digestion to feeding.
Practically, we would try to predict this for each enzyme we introduce, and wed get it wrong sometimes and right other times, some plastics might prove to be very tasty others might not. But in general I’d lean towards most plastic probably not getting natural decomposers, personally, but maybe!
Blend it up nicely and put it in a high speed centrifuge?
But seriously, replacing the organism tissue by tissue with clean replacements is about the most survivable option we’ve got right now.
We’ve found some DNA that codes enzymes that break down certain types, and we’re starting to crack protein folding. So maybe we could adapt them to play nice in humans and come up with a regiment, but we’re not nearly there yet
Do water filters filter out microplastics? Although if they did i’m not too sure of the effectiveness, aside from removing maybe unsafe quantities… mainly because most filter jugs are usually made out of plastic
Fun fact, when romans introduced lead pipes through aqueducts across the empire, the lead didn’t affect all populations equally because of this. Hard water regions were mostly spared. Turns out the layer of limescale that forms on pipes is also good at stopping the lead leaching.
Lead is still everywhere. Many electrical cords, Christmas decorations, paint remaining in homes from the 60s and before, even the 70s and possibly 80s. Many tools still sold today, screwdrivers, drill bits, etc. Many fresh produce foods have the potential and often do contain unsafe levels of lead, yes, stuff you buy at the grocery store. Some spices. Stained glass windows. Paints on cheap Chinese or elsewhere toys and other goods. People get lead poisoning today just from living their life not realizing normal stuff around them is dangerous. For real.
You know what also has it? Cheap silverware. You can literally rub it off with a terry cloth if you rub the utensil for like a minute straight… a friend of mine showed me one day. It leaves a shimmering powder on the cloth…
Never ever skimp out on silverware…
Most of the lead-filled silverware comes from China, too…
All hexbear users are communists or anarchists of some kind and like we don’t like the west particularly much and users from the instance have been getting into a lot of arguments about politics with default lemmy users - but we also really dislike neoliberal anti-communist gangsters like Putin, and we fucking despise Nazis PMCs like Prigozhin so in this moment it’s a common enemy dying so both groups are happy
Hexbear smoothbrains are happy that daddy Putin murdered a political rival.
This nonsense is like screaming that Charles Dickens writes books about scifi robots in space. It just demonstrates that you’ve completely failed to do even the most basic level of effort to understand what the actual beliefs of anyone on Hexbear are. You just completely make up your own reality based on some cartoon you have in your head.
Like seriously, go and talk to people first before stating such wrong things so matter of factly.
Stop by the news megathread sometime and see/ask for yourself. You probably won’t agree with a lot of stuff (and even that’s partly cause there’s layers of irony caked onto the walls), but it’s not quite as bad as you think.
"While his means of entry into South Korea in violation of the law was wrong, surveillance of the Chinese authorities and political persecution of Kwon since 2016 are behind his life-risking crossing into South Korea," Lee said.
"He is now weighing whether to apply for refugee status in South Korea or choose a third country," he said.
Well, that's nice. Glad they don't even consider sending him back or something. Hope he gets out of this well.
You are correct. Braverman and Sunak are appealing the decision by the Court of Appeal because they're inhuman but so far no one has been sent to Rwanda just yet.
They’ve also said they want to take away our human rights laws and leave the ECHR. Once they take away all those pesky human rights we’ll be all set. I, for one, am sick of all these fucking humans acting as if the human societies that humans built should serve humans and protect humans and encourage humans to prosper. Humans rights? Makes me sick. Can’t wait to get rid of them and show these humans who really matters, the people really in charge: [character limit reached]
Can you provide context and a source for that claim? Seems very sensational and hyperbolic
Edited to add: it was sensational and hyperbolic. They were referring to asylum centres to reduce the cost of housing asylum seekers. There are issues here but they are certainly not concentration camps - calling them such is at minimum very disrespectful to those who have suffered and died in actual concentration camps.
A telegraph article trying to whip people into a frenzy about foreign people being close by (and possibly having to gasp interact with one) isn’t what I’d refer to as a reliable or credible source.
“I would feel cooped up and I would be walking down to Finchingfield with my mates,” said one local resident who is campaigning against the plans.
We’re talking about the existence of of the camp here, not how it will be expected to run.
Are you questioning the existence of the camp on the fact this is a torygraph article.
Bibby Stockholm has been in the news recently, i would consider that a concentration camp too. Temporary structure in which asylum seekers are to be concentrated
That’s literally what concentration camps are. Points where you “concentrate” a population you’re trying to control.
Outright murdering the people you have in them was a Nazi death camp thing, but the Brits were probably most famous for using them before that while attempting to suppress colonial rebellion.
You joke, buy people have been pointing that out for decades now. There is a reason the term Ghetto is still a common descriptor for these areas to this day…
If there apartment seems like a concentration camp then it is likely subsidized housing, which is statistically likely to be part of a ghetto.
I have nothing against high density, living… the top commentor said their apartment feels like a concentration camp, and my point is that it essentially could be.
Is this that stupid shit where their air defense zone covers a huge chunk of mainland China and they freak out every time China flies Chinese planes over China?
Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, or ADIZ.
you would find that 10 aircrafts either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait or entered the southwestern part of the ADIZ. Neither of those is “flying over mainland China.”
It is, but it was clearly done to provoke Taiwan. Calling this a moot point is like saying that laughing at homeless people is fine because it is not illegal.
If you consider China flying planes on its coastline to be unacceptable provocation, I’d love to know what you consider the USA sending ships half way around the world to that same coastline.
China did not just fly planes on its coastline. They crossed the median line, which is an unofficial line that has been dividing the Taiwan Strait for decades. Planes and vessels from China and those from Taiwan would not cross this line to show mutual respect. China is purposely breaking this unwritten convention. See how they usually just barely cross the median line, fly parallel to the line for a bit and head back? Neither are the planes passenger planes, they are fighter jets. This is different from the US sending ships through the Strait. Sending a military ship through the Strait is a provocation to China, but it is much weaker than the direct provocation of the fighter jets crossing the median line.
Hate to break it to you, but even the US state department recognizes that there’s no such country as Taiwan. Please call it by its correct name, “Chinese Taipei,” so people know what you’re talking about.
you realize that the uptick in frequency of these ‘provocations’ only started in response to the pelosi visit? the incident that had a considerable portion of the entire chinese population howling for the cpc to shoot down the plane and engulf the world in nuclear fire? this is the cpc’s way of appeasing its very large and very rabid nationalist constituency (who are very disappointed that they have not died in a nuclear armageddon, btw) and it is a meme on the chinese internet that despite all of its rhetoric, this pathetic level of ‘not touching you’ fuckery is somehow the lowest that the cpc is willing to stoop to when faced with a de jure violation of its sovereignty.
This is the epistemological stumbling block of living in the west, is this cultural remnant of christianity that compels us to view all things first and foremost through the lens of good or evil, moral or immoral, fault and blame.
States are not perfect frictionless spheres floating in a vaccum and acting purely off some set of moral principles. They are enormous machines rooted into existence by countless interfaces, big and small, with the world as it exists. A state operates on material conditions, on probabilities, contingencies and eventualities. The number of trigger states in a computer is nothing compared to the volume of procedure and protocol involved in the running of a society. With this in mind, the more relevant question to ask with any geopolitical event is not “Who is morally responsible for this?” but “Is this outcome a logical one given our understanding of the factors at play?”
It probably does violate standing diplomatic agreements with the PRC over how that sort of thing would be handled. There was a lot of pushback in Taiwan because they saw it (correctly) as pointless pot-stirring.
Anyway, I think most of the flights that aren’t innocuous (and many of them are or they wouldn’t need to have such bullshit articles) are drills in preparation for the possibility of the US using Taiwan as a military platform as it has been angling for in the past. They aren’t just dick swinging or whatever, China doesn’t want to take any risks in the event of a military conflict, though it would prefer such a conflict not take place.
idk dog, the wording in the article leaves some weird wiggle room.
Of those aircraft, the ministry said 10 had either crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait, which previously served as an unofficial barrier between the two sides, or entered the southwestern part of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, or ADIZ.
The southwestern quadrant still includes a bit of mainland China and is mostly outside of the Strait, not to mention that all of the Strait is still in the ADIZ.
I mean condemnation is a great start, but Israel isn’t going to stop killing Palestinians until they’re stopped, or there’s no Palestinians left to kill.
Their rhetoric has made it clear that killing civilians isn’t an unfortunate consequence of stopping Hamas - it’s the objective, and they propped up Hamas over the PLO to create the pretext for this.
I mean, they call the Israelis that are taking land in the West Bank ‘settlers’. It’s colonial language that is explicitly meant to designate the Palestinians as ‘natives’ that need to be conquered. Similar to the ‘settling’ of the Americas or Australia, the people that were already there don’t count, don’t have rights and are basically a nuisance.
In the case of Australia, it was arguably a bit worse than that - the legal “terra nullius” justification translates to “nobody’s land”. At best, it said that there was no civilisation here - in reality, the general consensus seems to have been closer to “they’re just animals”. The way they were treated did nothing to suggest otherwise.
Israel is treating Palestine as terra nullus as well. You can just waltz in, take someone’s house, and the IDF will defend you. And it’s not like the courts are an option for recourse either.
Functionally, it’s not much different - a militarily dominant power invading with the backing of the bulk of the West, committing a genocide to sieze the territory.
Scalping should be illegal. You shouldn’t be able to buy something and resell it for more money than you bought it for unless you’re part of a distribution network like a store or you made significant improvements to the thing so it’s not really the same item.
I wish it was only Ryan Air, every other company does that nowadays. Every time I travel alone I end up switching seat a couple of times to let couples and families sit together.
Well they could just pay to sit together. You either don’t care where you sit, or you do and you will pay for that additional fee. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.