I have mixed feelings on this one, tbh

On one hand, that was actually the original name. That changed after WW2 and to be honest I kinda think the name was part of a greater campaign to make it seem as though, somehow, the military actions that followed in the next few decades in the middle east, Asia, Latin America, etc. were actually all just “defending” the US. Which is bullshit.

On the other hand, having perhaps the most insane president this country has ever seen saying that calling it war instead of defense because its more accurate to the current times is quite concerning to say the least.

I find it very promising. As much as I love meat, its pretty undeniable that raising livestock is super inefficient. It takes so much food to raise livestock that, iirc, more farmland in the US is dedicated to growing food for our food than to growing food for us. Lab grown meat doesn’t completely solve this - there are still lost calories in the process to my knowledge - but its way more efficnient. Plus less land usage, less fossil fuel emissions, overall it would be more sustainable.

I see 2 big problems facing it right now:

The first is scale, which is the more significant. We’d need to figure out how to grow meat on a truly massive scale. Definitely doable though, just needs more research.

The second is “realism” or how close it seems to natural meat. Lab grown meat has the advantage over like plant based stuff because it is actually meat. However, ifnits too perfect or uniform, or maybe doesnr have enough fat or variety, it might be seen as unnatural by many (even just subconsciously) and push them away from it.

But yeah, could be awesome.

his concerns about technology’s potential to enable authoritarian control.

I don’t even know what to say at this point

Obviously this is subjective, but I use android auto all the time and something similar for a linux phone would be really nice for me. Don’t dismiss them just cause you wouldn’t use them

Or are they so desperate to shoot someone that they just wanna blast some kid and say they feared for their lives?

It is exactly this. These are deeply violent people who are actively seeking any reason to hide behind the excuse of self defense.

Ok, the openAI thing is not great. However…

they advertise themselves as degoogled, but instead let you connect to Google/Microsoft/etc services

What the fuck are you talking about? Degoogled doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to connect to Google services. It just mean that it doesn’t require Google services to function and that the default configuration shouldn’t include any Google services. If the end user actively wants to use google/microsoft/etc services then they should be able to. It seems as though you are advocating for an open source operating system to lock itself down from allowing the end user to use certain features, which is against the FOSS ethos. Remember, “free” as in “freedom.”

Probably. But that might be under the umbrella of optional usage statistics/reporting that you can opt out of. Since this new tracking would be “necessary” for their “security” feature to work, there’s no chance that it could be avoided.

Could be, but that could also just be done locally. Like your phone checking the apps you have installed and seeing if the same ones are on the play store. Having an install limit for an app - assuming that means that the app can only be installed some total number of times globally (a local install limit wouldn’t make any sense I think) - necessarily implies that when you install an app through an APK, it has to tell Google that you installed that app so it can track how many people have installed it and not approve installation of the app if it’s over whatever the limit is.

Something kind of concerning I just found - there’s an option for “limited distribution” which is “Intended for ‘students, hobbyists, and other personal use.’” One of the differences is the following:

Has “capped number of apps and installs”(specific limits not disclosed)

Doesn’t this imply there’s going to be global tracking of what apps people are installing even through sideloading or APKs? I can’t think of any other way to enforce this. They would have to know how many times people installed an app even when its not through any kind of app store or even from the internet at all.

Huh? In the 2024 colorado election there was a ballot measure to retain excess tax from sports betting and it overwhelmingly passed. Year before there was a similar one for excess tax on tobacco, also passed by a ton. Are you referring to something different?

This is true, I was referring to english wikipedia.

Fyi everyone: you can download the entirety of Wikipedia yourself from kiwix and it’s only about 50gb for the whole thing, 100 with all images.

In theory thats all well and good, but in practice there is no state which I would trust to decide who does and doesn’t get free speech. If the bourgeosie don’t get free speech, then the state can silence anyone they disagree with by labeling them as part of the bourgeoisie. And while I certainly wish we could just take freedom of speech from nazis - because they absolutely do not deserve it, you’re right about that - in that case the state can silence anyone by labeling them a nazi. Which kinda is happening right now because some will try to silence people who are pro-palestinian by labeling them as anti-semetic and then comparing them to nazis. You also see that with people being labeled as terrorists, or gang affiliated, for example. (Same argument applies to due process, and to a greater extent, but thats not super relevant)

I know it’s not static, thats why I said I would support reunification if the people of Taiwan did. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge your own biases and hypocrisy on this matter.

If those complexities were significant enough, then the people of Taiwan would support reunification. Like you said yourself earlier, these people aren’t stupid. If it was best for them to be a part of the PRC they would support that, but they overwhelmingly wouldn’t. And, to be clear, this is not even close. Your own source said it was less than 8% of the population wanted reunification. That’s one of the most overwhelmingly unpopular opinions I’ve ever seen in politics.

This conversation started with you arguing that the PRC was so great because the people of the PRC believed it to be. That the PRC should be the way it is because thats what the people want. And now here we are, talking about a people who overwhelmingly think they should not be a part of the PRC, and now suddenly “what the people want” isn’t valid anymore? Why was that valid when it was in favor of the PRC but is invalid when it isn’t? Maybe you’re right that I have a bias and preconceived notions, but you clearly do too.

As I said, if the opinion of the people of Taiwan change to be in favor of reunification then I will also support it, regardless of what western influences want. I understand the situation is complex but consent and self-determination are not.

Again, my stance on Taiwan is simple: because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be part of the PRC, I do not believe they should be. Do you disagree with me?

I couldn’t care less about what the US government has to say on the matter. As I feel I’ve made abundantly clear, I do not believe Taiwan should be a part of the PRC because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be a part of the PRC. Any other factors are fairly insignificant compared to that. Even your pro-PRC article clearly states the statistics - that reunification is extremely unpopular to the people of Taiwan - so I really doubt that is western propaganda or the US narrative.

Well, as I said, if the people of Taiwan are ever willing to unify with the PRC then I will support it. But they don’t, they never have, and I see no reason to believe they ever will soon. China’s insistence that Taiwan is currently and always has been a part of China does not seem to me like waiting for consent of the people.

And I guess that’s where we’re just going to fundamentally disagree. The state should not have control over who does and doesn’t get freedom of speech. If they do, there is not truly freedom of speech.

Alright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth with the Chinese utopia thing, but you did the same to me, just to be clear.

As far as “conflict of interest” goes, I appreciate they are transparent in their interests, but what I mean by “conflict” is that if they have their interest is also to be fair and truthful (something I would hope is the case for any media) then they cant be fair and truthful about a conflict when their other interest is explicitly one side of that conflict. Again, I’m not dismissing the article as a whole but it’s very clearly one-sided.

From the resource you provided on Taiwan:

7.6% of respondents support some form of reunification

I don’t see how there is much conversation to be had beyond that. I don’t care that the majority of its population is ethnically Chinese, they don’t want to be part of the PRC. I recognize the American interests in keeping Taiwan independent and the problematic ties to the American military, but at the end of the day, if 92.4% of the population does not want to be a part of China then they should not be a part of China. And China, in wanting to control a foreign territory without the consent of its people, is imperialist in that regard. If the majority opinion of the people in Taiwan ever changes to be in favor of reunification, then I will change my mind on that matter.