Based.

And yes, KDE Connect ftw

Bad.

An amazing thing, to be honest

You’ll need to monitor it and take antibiotics before symptoms kick in, otherwise it may be too late.

In any case, the higher mortality, the lower the chance of spreading. There are and were plenty of viruses, for example, that have a similar mortality rate, but that’s exactly why there’s no outbreak - patients are easy to identify and isolate, and in the wild many die before propagating anything.

That’s how the Juggernaut collective started

So what they’re essentially said is that they’re gonna follow the rules for now to not be insta-banned, but will consider how to act next given the time they have received.

Which is why it’s important to tell Mozilla it really is a bad choice to follow Russian censors.

I think it’s important to support the original Mozilla since they are the engine developers and need resources to make all other gecko-based browsers possible.

Currently though, it might make sense to make a switch, at least for now.

Hmm, maybe, actually. Though it’s a softer word.

From that point of view, possibly yes. But is there a better alternative in English?

For someone who acts very stupid and dangerous. Something like “daredevil”, but with clearly negative connotations.

Trump unintentionally said a very based thing.

Only a psycho would challenge an institution of power in a runup to the election, or in a position of governance.

At the end of the day, one of the reasons armies even exist at this point is because any politician who may have political will to truly challenge the army and demilitarize would face an armed resistance and violent overthrow, which necessitates the proliferation of an institution that by itself is hugely harmful and parasitic.

The power of the rulers is held on violence, and any attempt to change the status quo will be challenged by the people extorting us all using the real power, equipped with weapons able to kill everyone on Earth.

In some ways, it’s the army that controls the rulers, not the other way around. And the former will do everything to keep holding to their control - and to keep existing even when they shouldn’t.

That’s my dream, and I actually had such relationships in the past.

For all intents and purposes, there are actually more men than women who want that, so you’re on a great side of it!

Just look for role reversal/female-led relationships, or even in gentle femdom communities (though the latter is sexual, the community of it highly intersects with the other two).

If they’re going FtM, that would sadly be the end of the relationships. Can see ourselves being friends, though!

No, Apple fucked themselves because one of the largest security firms now has much less incentive to work white hat.

Communism does not necessitate self-sufficiency, moreover, a switch to fully domestic production is detrimental to any economy. The reason modern economy is globalized is that it’s simply more efficient, and capitalist economies are all about efficiency, as it allows to extract more value. At the same time, many past socialist economies were forced to only partner with other socialist economies, which limited their options and hurt their economy.

One of the key reasons communist classics called for a global revolution is to gain the critical mass of communism-aligned countries to minimize this effect and maximize globalization efforts. The communist endgame is one interconnected world without any nations to begin with, not to mention any protectionism.

That’s all, like, economics 101.

No, I just state the fact that protectionism doesn’t mean communism and globalism doesn’t mean capitalism.

They are different terms for a reason.

There was everything protectionist about Nazi Germany, who seeked to give control of German industries to German capitalists.

Second approach is better as it teaches you to fix and understand the system you’re working with

Of course, this is a more complicated and energy - demanding approach, though. But if you wanna stay on Linux, you better figure such stuff out, this will be invaluable in the long run.

I should also mention that Debian, despite the Bookworm introducing more user-friendly options, is not a newbie-centered distribution and fixing things in there tend to be more tedious for an inexperienced user.

The upside, however, is that once you’ve set it up, everything will just work. But first you might face some pain.

As I said, protectionism may coexist or not coexist with communism, as it can with any other economic system.

If you’re serious about equating protectionism and communism, you should probably be happy with the way things were done in the Third Reich.

You should seriously reconsider the terms you employ, and read the classics more thoroughly. Also, open the goddamn Wikipedia if you’re too lazy for that.

Strict prohibitions on foreign controlling interest in real estate, capital, and intellectual property, for starters.

This is protectionism and it has literally nothing to do with communism. Those are two absolute different things that can coexist or not coexist.

Same relates to your other points.

Your rhetoric is eerily similar to protectionist points of Nazi Germany, a very non-communist state that was obsessed with domestic control and protecting domestic capitalist with the proclaimed idea of “capital belonging to all people of Germany”, as opposed to “evil Jewish cartels”.

Simply trapping the capital inside the country speaks little of what gets to the workers. And if we talk communism, ALL of the capital is directly owned by the collective of workers. Which is not China.

Define “communist economic policies”.

If you’re Luo Wen, you’re in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.

It’s not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the “property of workers”.

You’re right on classics - but off topic.

I’m saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn’t feasible at the moment.

I’m combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it’s a capitalist state with social elements.

A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn’t do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.

A return in form of cash or lease.