If you ask a russian there is a good chance they will tell you Russia is “defending” one thing or another in Ukraine.
Or that russia is in fact defending itself from an attack from “the west” atm.
It’s all bullshit, but propaganda will do its thing.
Nothing (russian) stopping NK from trying to “defend” some shit in SK as well.
Off course they will then find out that Putins word is not worth the dickhole it came out of, but that’s another story.
Russia and entering treaties that neither party intends to honor…
I am pretty sure his movie career failed so hard he even had to act in a video game.
A high-profile British judge who resigned from Hong Kong’s highest court last week has warned the city is “slowly becoming a totalitarian state”
Slowly becoming my ass…
HK is already totalitarian af.
Why do you think you can dictate to anyone what to wear?
So by your own claim you are part of the polytheistic church of Paul?
That just is not catholicism.
Which is so easy to prove because the catholics love to write down their many rules.
So I honestly would just answer right back at you:
FFS read a book.
And btw, while I have been an atheist for many years now, I was raised strictly catholic in a highly religious area by my catholic family that included a catholic nun and the headmaster of a catholic school and I intensively studied christianity before I made my break with this religion.
You can’t bullshit me.
Catholicism is the church of Paul, and isn’t strictly monotheistic, trinitarianism and unitarianism aside.
That is just plain wrong, no two ways about it.
To me it sounds like you listened to some protestant that doesn’t care much for the catholic church and just repeat his rant without questioning it much.
And don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t care less about christian infighting. I was just curious about the reasoning how the catholic church, which is one of the oldest and most “original” christian churches, could be considered not christian at all.
After your post I don’t believe there is much basis to this claim at all.
That is totally new to me.
Can you give me one or two of those many definitions for my understanding?
I had success talking about the tortoise one with imaginary time stamps.
I think it gets more understandable that this pseudo paradox just uses smaller and smaller steps for no real reason.
If you just go one second at a time you can clearly see exactly when the tortoise gets overtaken.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but why isn’t it widely adopted then?
If meta joined, the users that make most fediverse content now will see their engagement drop.
That’s where you lose me again.
Why would the engagement drop if a ton more users could consume your content.
It’s not like the ratio of content creators to lurkers is any better on meta apps than here.
Btw thank you for the good faith discussion, I don’t think that would have happened at the old place.
I know that you have put more thought into this topic than I did and you just might be right.
But dude that wallmart analogy misses the point by a mile.
Wallmart kills the small stores by simply undercutting them, this has nothing to do with what meta might do.
And you didn’t really argue my point that people like you and I could and probably would consume meta content if it was federated.
But why would anyone that is part of the fediverse right now jump ship if meta came and went away again?
I damn sure will never create another meta account or use any meta app. Would you?
I understand all those points.
I just don’t quite see how that would kill the fediverse.
After all wouldn’t we be exactly where we are now if meta disconnected again?
It’s not like you and I would suddenly start using threads if it started federating.
This post is pure and unadulterated bullshit.
Germany didn’t go to Iraq with the US.
Germany will never stop supporting Ukraine.
You are full of shit.
I don’t know if I would call it really good, but if I were to ever write a novel the setting would be dark fantasy like somewhere between the middle ages and the modern times where most men of the protagonists society are about to come back from a long war, but they also bring back a mysterious illness.
The protagonists were just too young to have gone to said war, but maybe an older brother did go, maybe he fell idk.
At some point the father comes home, but what was supposed to be a happy occasion turns darker because he is changed by war.
There has to be some form of secret society that has something to do with the illness or the lack of a cure for the common people.
And the young protagonists will have to deal with that situation due to circumstances and not because they were chosen or secret princes or something like that.
And I am a sucker for happy endings so while the novel would be rather dark as a whole, the ending would see a dramatic change to society with at least the potential to get better.
I think times of change make for good fiction.
I will never write that novel though, but just maybe I might get to use the setting for a TTRPG campaign some day.
It is far from perfect, but a big step in the right direction.
Some would say, Danke Merkel Karl.
Others might say, Bubatz soon.
Lots of stuff you can criticize about the German government, but they are still way better than more of the same would have been.
What are you saying?
You won’t convince me by just making statements as if they were facts.
You cannot resolve this by increasing the green capacity, because all of them have same dependencies.
If this were true you might be correct but it simply is not.
If you increase cheap green capacities enough and build a strong large area grid with some form of energy storage there could easily be enough enough energy in the system to last over any natural fluctuation.
And the nice thing is that if we at some point enter a state where the sum of green energy produced becomes vastly higher than the energy need it becomes less important that different forms of energy storage like water turbines are not very efficient and the storage can be ramped up to make the whole ecosystem even more stable.
This is all perfectly possible and quite possibly cheaper than building new nuclear reactors.
So even if you think nuclear energy is safe and the management of the waste products is not a problem (which are two things I would disagree with, but let’s not get into that for now) I still don’t see why any country should invest in nuclear energy over green energy.
Robust large scale energy grids and some form of energy storage are things that society wants (and probably needs) anyway, so even just from a strictly economic view green is just the way to go.
Removed by mod