Thank you for the information sir!
Holy yes, that's a whole lot to unpack here. I understand the situation a bit better now. What a shitty choice for an election xd
On the plus side, I understand the Argentinean memes now that pop up then and there—their game is on point. (South American/Latin American meme culture, in general, is on top of things and much more represented among all age groups.) Kudos to them, still keeping humor alive despite the situation.
Interesting. Thank you for your elaborations!
Hmm, I understand your reference, but how does it apply here? Can you explain? For those not expecting anything, most things are unexpected.
A civil war is likely not one of those things because if the majority of the population did not expect one and is therefore not involved, is it really a civil war (and not a putch?) I know it's a civil war in the sense of an inner conflict of power, but I mean the populace does not actually care who's winning because they are already too detached and not really invested in the conflict, as seen in some countries.
Brain drain is a real issue. Mostly "common" people are left, and the leaders now profit far more from the existing system and are more interested in preservation and personal gains than anything else. The few opposing "leading" people that are left got hit pretty hard; let's remember what happened with Navalny, the most notable of them. Also, I don't know why you think Russians actually have a choice in who they vote into office. At least in my understanding, they do not; I mean, it's a phantom choice. Russia is only on paper a democracy and a pretty bad one at that. They do not have real free elections, and you can definitely not compare it to the presidential election in the USA.
Again, I do not understand why you judge or have the same expectations of Russia as you would a Western democracy, but at the same time, acknowledging that they are definitely not. Since I am alive, I've known Russia as an autocracy/dictatorship with an oligarchy and Putin as an autocrat.
To whom do you think someone with a superior complex, all the money, and resources in the world answers? Sure, he's not alone; he has his accomplices and enablers, and Putin is not the root of the problem, but no one said that. No autocracy is working because there is one man who says, "I'm president now." It's working because of a complex structure that is there to support exactly one leader. If someone is behind the scenes and truly has more power than Putin, he/they would have replaced Putin a long time ago. As you said, real predators are not this stupid. I call it an autocracy supported by an oligarchy and definitely not a democracy (I mean the actual word definitions here, not what someone might connect with those words).
Yes, in a correct world, he will get arrested and put in front of a military court like it is happening sometimes in Ukraine. And yes, if a Ukrainian soldier executes a Russian because he caught him in the act of committing war crimes or for whatever reason, he should get arrested. Of course, I don't expect the judge to rule harshly in such circumstances, but yes, a war crime is a war crime, no matter how justified someone might think it is. But I know that's often not the reality.
That's maybe a stupid opinion of mine, but, for example, people in a free democracy are far more to blame if their elected leaders and their actions and intentions go sideways than the population of an autocracy. Because in the first, the leaders are an "extension" of the folk, and in the latter, the population is an "extension" of the leader. I don't know how to say it in English; I hope you understand what I mean.
Of course, I still expect them to do the right thing, but I fully understand that this is a losing battle as long as the leader can pacify the masses via whatever medium or can keep them distracted; they are safe. That's where sanctions (I know this is only one aspect of sanctions) come into play; you gradually chip away at what made the Russian oligarchy/autocracy so stable for a time. If it gets worse or even uncomfortable for the population and there is no real reason or they do not believe the reasons of the leaders why they are worse off, then you will see movement. This takes time but is our best shot to "wake up" the Russian population and make the situation harder to handle for the regime.
For example, if Putin gets "elected" in the next election, we laugh and sure, what else did you expect? If Americans elect Trump for the second time, we think, "WTF is wrong with you guys? Are you still sane?"
XD so basically, we go in the direction of cyberpunk, where corporations are more powerful than countries.
oh yeah for sure could be a reaction to the opium wars
It's never the drugs that make a society erode; it's a symptom. If you have a big drug problem in a country, most likely it's related to much bigger issues at the core. Like in the Opium Wars, it was the British Empire that basically drugged China as a means to get what they want. It's not like they discovered drugs and then just stopped doing anything else; we humans had drugs and used drugs since we know about them.
Some argue this tactic is still very much in use today, hence the fentanyl crisis, which seems to be fueled by China. It's a destabilizing tactic. That's also part of why China and other Asian countries are so strict because they know firsthand the effectiveness of literally drugging your foe to gain an advantage. This does not mean China and co do not have their own drug market; they have a pretty vivid drug scene.
Also, as an example, Japan or China, yeah, sure, you can't buy weed; they will basically curb-stop you legally. But you can drink as much alcohol as you want, smoke as much tobacco as you want, and drink as many caffeine drinks as you want. These are all recreational drugs with a much higher impact on society than weed, yet they are totally legal and accepted by everyone or are even traditional.
RIP Argentina. I don't know the situation that led to this, but man, that sounds real, real bad for the average Argentine people.
I know of one person in my wider circle who reacts also pretty bad when children are being children around him. In his childhood, every time he was loud, wanted attention, or just did what a child does, his parents (they did not even want children; he was an "accident") got really angry at him. So children being children is a trigger for him.
Talking to a trained professional helped him immensely to handle this.
I think he's pointing out that in the future, this could lead to regulatory measures by the government because they get pressured by the big corps that AI locally is dangerous, but AI with big corps is all good and the right way. Which is an understandable concern. It's not about you using whatever model you're using; it's about the broader philosophy of how AI should be integrated into our world. He's saying the big corps are trying to monopolize the AI market, which is valid because that's what's happening right now.
Is this really this big in the USA? We only know the McGregor memes over here XD. I don't want to sound stupid; I just don't know. But is this just a private for-profit company, so they do what every company does to make a profit? Or is this a regulated sport association where not one company or person has full control, and any organization can join (if they qualify), like other regulated sports?
It sounds like a guy had the idea, "I'll let people fight for money" (in a sport that's not regulated by anyone than hinself), also get powerful investors on your side so that you can monopolize the market.
lol sure, some have. How many bike thieves are there in a small city of about a little more than 100k, and who is buying those stolen bikes? I imagine he has regulars he's visiting now when a bike is stolen xd
Yeah, I know what you meant, and you are right; extremist is the wrong word (English is not my main language, sorry). Still, almost 25% of the country is considered extreme by your own definition of the norm, which seems high, but of course, it depends on how these statistics were made and what questions were asked.
Oh no, don't misunderstand me; I am totally on your side, although not as well-read or versed as you are. I just want to say there is an increasing discrepancy between what we think the information and general situation, for example, the people in rural Russia where most people live, is like versus what it actually is. Change will come; it is inevitable, but it takes time and may cost many lives. You expect too much of the average folks who are not really connected or concerned about the "outside" world and rather are living in their own world, which may not adhere to your way of thinking.
Thank you for your explainations!
I don't know if I'm allowed to say this as a non-American, but how the heck did you end up in that situation? How do a large portion of you still vote and support the people who are actively dismantling the foundation of your country? (I'm not talking about the Biden admin; they are generally very well-received where I live, especially after Trump.) Yeah, I'm sure Russia and most likely other countries interfere with American politics, and/or some of your politicians are paid for by these outside actors, and it works like a charm. If I were Putin, I would try to interfere as much as I can and sow as much distrust and misinformation within the USA as possible
.
Yes, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not change the facts. No, the influence is not "what if it is there" – it is there, plain and simple. That's not up for discussion. It's public knowledge that Tencent owns 40%, and Tencent is a government-controlled entity. It does not matter if they "abuse/use" it actively or not. It sounds like, in your mind, influence is only relevant when you use it actively, which is not true.
I never said it was not for profit. I said you invest to gain influence, which is true by fact, not an opinion. If I buy a significant number of shares in a company, I do so because I want more than money; I want influence on decision-making. I do not think the Chinese government is only interested in monetary gains; do you think that's their only goal?
And again, do you believe a country/government able to indoctrinate any business that wants a share of their market, like the Steam example, is only invested for monetary gains and nothing else?
Tim Sweeney can do and decide many things, but opposing the Chinese government is certainly not one. And I don't know how you imagine influence, but having 40% of a company is something I call influence, wouldn't you? Even if they can't tell him how to run the business, he sure as hell will do nothing that could worsen the relationship between him and his biggest investor, aka Tencent. And who is behind Tencent? The Chinese government.
Please, you are so right - but please do not engage further with this kind of posts in the future, just report them - the OP of this post is 1 day old, most likely a bot account - Lemmy needs better moderation, and that fast, it's getting worse and worse, day by day.