South Korea - I was there until very recently. Feel free to look up the privacy laws, they're basically GDPR with extra cherries on top and a chocolate flake. Never got blocked by any of the websites called out here for blocking EU IPs on GDPR grounds.
Centralized only became mainstream when everything started to be offered "for free". When it was buy or pay recurrently more often the choice was to buy.
There are no FOSS alternatives for consumer use unless the consumer is an IT pro or a developer. Regular people can’t use most open source software without help. Some of it, like Linux desktop stuff, has a nice enough UI that they can use it casually but they can’t install or configure or fix it.
Making software that is polished and reliable and automatic enough that non computer people can use it is a lot harder than just making software. I’d say it’s usually many times harder.
I don't think that is a software issue but a social issue nowadays. FOSS alternatives have become quite OK in my opinion.
If computers came with Debian, Firefox and Libre Office preinstalled instead of only W11, Edge and with some Office 365 trail, the relative difficulty would be gone I think.
Same thing with most IT departments only dealing with Windows in professional settings. If you even are allowed to use something different you are on your own.
Some people, but a majority see it as free. Go to your local town center and randomly poll people how much they pay for email or google search, 99% will say it is free and stop there.
And of course the really important one where only Enterprise is allowed to fully disable Telemetry: https://admx.cengizyilmaz.net/policy/allow-diagnostic-data “Diagnostic data off (not recommended). Using this value, no diagnostic data is sent from the device. This value is only supported on Enterprise, Education, and Server editions.”
Well, you can remove the Windows spotlight stuff from the lock screen through the regular settings. Change it from Windows Spotlight to picture or whatever, and remove "Weather and more" from the "show detailed status". I'd say the ability to disable that through Group Policy stretches the definition of "important feature"
I'm not sure I'd agree those policies are enough to truly argue Windows 7 was a last version to not separate out important features to Enterprise -- I'd actually instead simply make the larger point that before Windows 10, Windows wasn't a chintzy ad-driven whorehouse.
No. Like "master" as a branch name, even if it's perfectly fine in this context, as long as it could be suggesting the word use in a problematic context, it should be banned. That's how we banned "master" as a branch name, so why not MCP?
Yes, I mean we should ban all abbrev with M in it /s
> Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU.
Not correct. Fuel for private aviation is taxed, including jet fuel and avgas. However, there are very few "private" jets, most are operated by some company, and therefore not private. Jet-A1 for a truely privately operated C172 with a diesel engine is taxed.
I highly doubt that Russia is capable or willing to get into a fullscale war with EU. It's more than 3 years into war with Ukraine without any meaningful result, but repercussions for Russia, while not fatal, still significant. There was very limited military aid for Ukraine, yet Ukranian UAVs explode in Moscow and regions almost every day. Also there's a gas pipe from Russia to EU amidst the conflict which both sides afraid to even touch. Also EU has nuclear.
Full scale is unlikely. Russia could not, but they might send 250k/year to die in Estonia. EU and Nato (with or without US) would defend. But I doubt they would go all the way through Russia to force them to stop.
Nuclear option is not likely to be used for some "minor" conflict like that, because it would go both ways quickly.
This assertion is sharply undercut by the facts. I have an incredibly hard time believing that you're engaging in good faith here.
There is literally zero evidence whatsoever that Russia cares about 'equality for ordinary people' and a mountain of conclusive proof that it does not.
Ukraine did not owe Russia anything at all, so these 'negotiations' were nothing more than theater. Russia gave Ukraine the choice between either surrendering their sovereignty (for literally zero benefit in exchange) or being invaded. That is not a negotiation, that's state-sponsored terrorism.
For example It is clearly that some Ukraine nationalist did bloody crimes before the war even if Russian media exegarates it. Even the European Court of Justice has acknowledged crimes on the side of Ukraine.
I'm Russian, but it is my real opinion. I don't get paid anything for it. And I understand that not all Russian(goverment) actions are good, some were incorrect or questionable. Russia just don't want NATO expansion to the East even without transparent referendums. It's all very complicated in reality, in war no side perfectly correct and right and clean... :(
Why does Russia have any right to say whether sovereign countries on its borders join NATO or not?
The only reason Russia cares is because it wants to continue controlling them -- not because it's worried about the mythical NATO invasion of Russia its news and leader trumpet.
And in contrast, the only reasons those countries want to join NATO is because they're scared of Russia invading them, which it historically has. (See: Finland and eastern Europe)
Why US and EU worried about Nuclear Weapon in Iran?(I've exaggerated a bit here for an example).
NATO has more troops and equipment than Russia, it does not need to be afraid of Russia and seeks to expand even more.
To be sure even about majority opinion in Finland about joining NATO, in such serios questions you need referendum data but there is no such referendum. Even supporters of the West are not always in favor of joining a purely military and not only defensive NATO Alliance.
Yes USSR invading Finland in Soviet-Finland war it's bad, the USSR offered Finland a territory in return before the war, but unfortunately, it did not seem very profitable, but then, during WW2 for most of the time, Finland fought on the side of the German Axis coalition. And Finland did not fight quite adequately and also committed crimes, created concentration camps to isolate peoples who were not ethnically related to Finns and ("non-indigenous peoples") to move out of the territories where these people lived all their lives and many people died in these camps and there is some evidence of crimes in these camps. If someone want to take away something from you, for example, a part of the territory, then would it be adequate to ask for help from a notorious bandit(Hitler) who burns people? Such question has no good answer.
I'm not oneside propagandist. I just want that more people try to see things from all sides and analyse more information. Maybe I'm wrong.
In countries where there is a very significant part of the Russian-speaking and sympathetic to the Russia population, Russia wants their opinion(russian speaking people) to be taken into account, they are not forbidden to speak and study Russian in schools. Yes, sometimes they exaggerate reasonable demands. But I recognize that such countries have the right to require that all official documents be in the main language and the officials need to know the main language. I think it's not that Russia want fully control of this Countries. Russia wants trade and interact economically with these countries, and not just to have all Russian goods blocked or subject to huge duties without reasons.
Sorry for lots of text. And I may be mistaken in some points.
You need to rethink your information environment, you are repeating many false claims that I recognise from past propaganda.
For instance your view of NATO membership is fundamentally flawed as it assumes a NATO push to take on more members, when in reality even the most shallow research shows that it was actually based on a pull from countries who lobbied to be able to join NATO and had to jump through hoops to qualify.
Why did those countries want to join NATO? Because they recognised that, alone, they were vulnerable to what’s clearly a revanchist Russia looking to annex or otherwise control other countries in the region. By being part of a broad security alliance like NATO those countries made themselves safer from Russian attacks.
As for Russian speakers in Ukraine, I know many Ukrainians, most of whom from the east who learnt Russian as a first language. All but one of them absolutely detest Russia, have nothing good to say about Russians in general, who they see as complicit, and have become even more fiercely pro-Ukrainian and patriotic than they were before the war. Many have chosen to speak Ukrainian primarily, despite it being their second language.
And why wouldn’t they? Russia’s invasion destroyed their homes and their way of life, levelling entire cities, and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. The idea that all of this was done in their name or to their benefit is insulting.
Since the cold war, it was always understood that it would be OTAN that would have to resort to nuclear weapons to halt a mythical soviet attack on western europe.
There's no conceivable scenario the United States could sustain the logistic chains to engage in a sustained land war in Europe against the soviets in the cold war, and now even less so.
Given the preponderance of artillery of the Russians, I really doubt the current numbers from the delusional british about their losses in Ukrain, but supposing Russia would incur 250 deaths year to subdue Estonia is beyond the realms of the most fantastic political sciences major military fantasy.
The United States fought for 20 years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban regime with the Taliban at the cost of more than 2 trillion dollars. Even nominal success like Desert Storm were not the military triumph it seems as besides Saddam's army being a poor excuse of a military force, widespread bribing was used to guarantee several Iraq's military units would not fight.
Hitler employed 111 divisions on the Barbarossa plan, with the known results. The US has currently 5 divisions equivalent in state of readiness plus some other ten that would take take time. Any serious american operation against Russia in Eastern Europe would thus necessitate a draft in far bigger proportions than the Vietnam's era Draft, in a population that is way less jingoistic than the boomers eager to prove they were up to the heroic acts of the silent generation that overcome the Axis in the battlefield. A lot of american industrial production has been downsized and sizable parts of it depend on global supply chains.
While american weaponry are technologically impressive, most of it was designed by the most byzantine and politicized proccess you could imagine with the goal of guaranteeing politicians votes in their turfs and to maximize returns for the Military Industry shareholders. American weaponry is maintainance intensive, have low availability and depend on optimal conditions to be operated and mantained. They also depend on robust ISR. All things that a smart enemy with hypersonic weapons and space capabilities would make sure to deny on the first day.
The idea that the United States could prevail in a direct lan war against Russia or a naval conflict against China is a fantasy.
There is a straightforward way to win a naval conflict against China, which is basically a repeat of the strategy used with great success against Japan in WWII. Use mines and submarines to cut off their fossil fuel, food, and fertilizer imports. Starve them to death. Chinese leaders are aware of this vulnerability, and are working hard to reduce dependence on foreign energy as well as building a blue water navy that can protect their sea lines of communication. But progress has been slow.
As for Russia, their internal economy is very weak and they have far less industrial capacity than the old USSR. The only way they are able to financially sustain the invasion of Ukraine is through huge fossil fuel exports. Those exports pass through a limited set of choke points including pipelines, refineries, tank farms, and ports which are impossible to defend and can be wrecked with stand-off weapons. Some of your criticisms of overly complex US weapons systems are valid, but our cruise missiles are proven to work reliably.
It doesn't make much sense to be measured by classical armies if all these countries unfortunately have nuclear weapons and can use them in case of a critical situation. And that's the scariest part. :( It's better to find a middle ground in negotiations somehow.
Sounds good. Everyone loves negotiations when they get what they want. Do you think those negotiations will result in China and Russia ceasing their attempts to seize territory from our allies? If not then we might have to take other measures. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we seem to be on a long-term collision course for fundamental geopolitical reasons that will extend beyond the current US presidential administration.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm Russian. But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries, Russia already has a very large territory. Ukraine is a different story, there really are a lot of people there who used to live in the same country with Russia(USSR) and speak only Russian language and really sympathize Russia. I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid. As I wrote earlier NATO currently has more troops and equipment than Russia.
The current Russian leader sees the collapse of the USSR as a "tragedy". And since 1990 they they have invaded Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine (after repeatedly promising that they wouldn't). That looks like a pattern. I understand why Russia is doing it to create defensible strategic depth due to lack of natural geographic barriers around their population centers. But that doesn't make it right, and regardless of moral issues Russian expansionism is certainly contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies. Who will be the next victim, perhaps Estonia?
I bear no ill will towards Russian people but while the current malign leadership remains in power we should use all means short of war to contain, undermine, impoverish, and generally humiliate the country. Grind them into the dust until they can no longer present a credible threat. But that's just my opinion.
I think the collapse of the USSR was more bad than good, not because of the loss of territory, but because of the collapse of socialist and communist ideals. I believe that better than people are more equal, and there are no billionaires or multi-billionaires. Individuals do not need wealth of this size.
But Russia is not taking people off the streets to war by force currently. Most of those who fight for Russia really believe that they are right. And almost everyone who wanted to could leave Russia. Currently it's not like in WW2 and Hitler. Russian soldiers do not kill civilians on purpose(maybe with the exception of single crimes that are being investigated), it has no point, (although it is possible that by mistakes, this is a war, unfortunately) and in Russia there is not even the death penalty, although in the US there is.
Russia always proposes some kind of settlement so that there is no war. Sometimes they are not so terrible, for example, simply not to make Russian-speaking citizens second-class citizens, not to forbid them anything. Sometimes the demands are of course not entirely adequate, but this is not always the case. And other side can offer some middle ground.
I believe that an invasion in any Baltic country is possible only in one case, if they completely cut off the food supplies of Kaliningrad, and if the sea route is completely blocked, and the people in Kaliningrad will suffer without food.
I didn't support Putin in the last elections, for example, especially because of the change in the constitution. And I don't really understand why he didn't find an adequate successor, for example.
I'm saying this just so you don't think that I think Russia is always right.
Yes, you may think differently. And I may be wrong.
>and in Russia there is not even the death penalty, although in the US there is.
Aside from all the rest of the nonsense and foolishness you've written about Russia and the supposedly lovely ideals of the USSR's bloody, genocidal history, this particular nugget stood out.
Russia has no formal death penalty, sure. Instead it's government illegally murders opponents domestically and internationally, frequently and in sizable numbers while lying about having done so. Aside from the U.S death penalty laws being completely different in nature to such a mafia practice by the Russian government and its agents, at least the U.S, formally and through due process, executes its criminals without concealing what it does.
> But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries /---/ I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid.
Well, that's exactly the problem. Several countries in Europe have more Russians in their population than the Kherson oblast (<14%), which Russia officially annexed.
Yes, I somehow understand this, people are different. I hope that there will be no such thing. It's hard to describe all here in comments. And I fully understand, for example, the country's desire to encourage people to learn the main language of the country.
There was a real danger of people colliding in Ukraine at that time. If everything had been completely peaceful, no seizures would have happened.
After all, there really were supporters of the old government and opponents of it. Or even if NATO had signed an agreement that would definitely not accept Ukraine, perhaps for at least 50 years or some rather long period.
Unfortunately, many people no longer trust the West and NATO, they have failed to fulfill the role of an impartial leader who sets an example for others. They have committed too much deception for their own benefit.
In short, and very very roughly, I'm probably a proponent of a kind of balance. Which side is weaker (the whole NATO is clearly stronger when compared than Russia) that side is currently "right", and we need to look for something like a middle ground. If Ukraine had not received huge assistance from NATO countries and the government had not sought to join it, it would have been a different story. Yes, there is some deception on the other side, too, of course.
If you think about it well, then everything in life is not so simple.
Yes, actually, that's my point. Escalation is inevitable should a real war start. And it will be the United States that will have to resort to nuclear weapons to avoid a defeat.
It will work, and you could probably even say thereafter that the US won the war.
But, it will be a pyrric victory.
This is delusional. There's no real way the United States military and NATO can effect a long sustained blockade on China. American Industry will slow to a halt before the chinese will feel the pain.
The Chinese may like our dollars. But we rely on their manufacturing.
People sometimes fail to understand the real world meaning of having a trade deficit of more than one trillion dollars.
Not at all. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but the process of decoupling the USA from China is well underway. A lot of manufacturing is moving to other countries like Vietnam and Mexico. Losing access to cheap Chinese imports would be painful but mainly just for consumers. We don't rely on them for strategically important stuff, especially not for military equipment.
If there is a conflict with China then I doubt that other NATO members will play much of a role since they have no critical national interests in the Indo-Pacific region. It will mainly just be the USA with perhaps some assistance from a loose coalition of Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam, Philippines, and/or India.
Beijing's main concern is an uprising by the population. They are right to be concerned: there have been dozens of uprising and civil wars in Chinese history each of which has killed millions of people. Beijing has successfully used export industries to give 100s of millions of citizens manufacturing jobs which provide a good-enough living to keep their population from revolting. In other words, Beijing has been dependent on exports just to avoid social chaos. In contrast, the US has not been and is not dependent on exports to anything like the same extent.
Beijing did not want the trillions of US dollars it owns: it does not have some master plan the implementation of which requires $trillions. These trillions are an unwanted side-effect of Beijing's policy over the decades of keeping the dollar strong relative to the yuan to makes Chinese good cheap in dollars to encourage owners of dollars to buy Chinese goods (which, again, it does to try to avoid social chaos).
And also, like other commenters have mentioned, China needs to import food, fertilizer and liquid fossil fuels to prevent its people from starving whereas the US is self-sufficient in liquid fossil fuels and food (though I don't know about fertilizer).
The reason it is prioritizing electric vehicles is because right now, if China stops being able to import enough liquid fossil fuels on tanker ships (e.g., from the Gulf and from Russia's European ports), it loses the ability to deliver food to its people. If they manage to make their electric-vehicle infrastructure robust enough, then in some future year, they'll be able to run their delivery trucks on electricity generated from coal, which it has enough of without having it import it.
Beijing is currently in a weaker position than Washington economically and militarily and the difference is quite significant. If Beijing ever launches an attack on Taiwan, that is a strong sign that the leaders in Beijing think the gulf between China and the US is widening (i.e., China is falling ever further behind) because if they thought that the gulf were narrowing, they would conclude that they can afford to wait and snap up Taiwan in the future.
The USA imports a significant fraction of fertilizer (including from China and Russia). But longer term we're in pretty good shape as long as we can get past these ridiculous trade disputes with Canada and Mexico. In particular a lot of fertilizer uses natural gas as a key input, and we're fortunate to have a lot of that.
