There is more than just one person behind Venezuela's misfortune. The external pressure to undermine the country has been immense and shouldn't be discounted. As always, not black and white.
Can't see it described as the world's biggest instrument on the wiki page - only the biggest pipe organ. Is it really bigger than the biggest carillon?
Very disappointing to see some of the arguments being put forth in favour of this blatant aggression. After reading through quite a few comments I'm left with the impression that very many people seem to hold some pretty dubious opinions:
1. That previous justifications in the lead up to this event are now irrelevant or to be ignored or forgotten about ('narco-terrorism', 'it's our oil', 'sanctions busting', etc).
- These were all weak to begin with (but are still relevant because the truth is in there and stated almost explicitly - i.e. 'US interests').
2. That this attack on Venezuelan sovereignty was done for moral reasons ('bad regime').
- Even accepting that the government of Venezuela is a 'bad regime', this is insufficient - there are many arguably much worse governments in the world.
3. That might is right.
- Correct in some sense but morally bereft.
All in all a lot of post-facto nonsense on display.
I'm frankly appalled at the self-serving moral blindness on display here. I refuse to believe that people are arguing in good faith here. Disappointing to see from the otherwise thoughtful commenters on this site.
To anyone making the above arguments, let me ask you - what do you think of the saying "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?
He is not an EU citizen and, as a foreigner, acts as a mouthpiece for a hostile dictatorship. The US has sanctioned similar people too, most notably Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia Today: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2559
One definition of authoritarian is "enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom".
It would seem to me that the recent spate of sanctioning individuals - e.g. for 'disseminating misinformation' without a legal definition of what that actually is would be an example of authoritarianism. A direct attack on freedom of speech and thought.
A curated web directory. Kind of like Yahoo had. The internet according to the dewey system with pages somehow rated for quality by actual humans (maybe something to learn from Wikipedia's approach here?)
Fosi ZD3 (https://fosiaudio.com/products/fosi-audio-zd3-fully-balanced...). Supports HDMI with CEC. I turn on my Apple TV, it turns on the TV, which in turn turns on the Fosi DAC - all connected with HDMI. The DAC then turns on a ZA3 amp via 12v trigger cable. Volume control etc is via the Apple remote.
All very cheap really. Total cost I think was about $550 (refurbished TV, second hand Apple TV, new Fosi DAC and amp). All this and I get to keep the TV in 'dumb' mode. Never even use the TV remote.
Hypothetical: I buy a product imported legally from the US and later sell it on the local used market to a Chinese tourist who takes it back to China with them. Where is the crime, smuggling, or 'banditry' here? US law is just that - US law.
If the importer didn't have the intent of it going to the tourist, then things are fine for that one-off GPU. If they did have that intent we quickly get to smuggling territory, with or without you as a middleman.
And for GPU trips without a country in between, the plausible deniability is close to zero.
It occurred to me the other day that young people rarely get described as 'shy' anymore. 'Anxious' is more common now.
Interestingly it was common to hear "they're shy, but they'll grow out of it". I don't think the same is ever said about anxious people (and I say this as someone who was very shy/socially anxious as a teen and 'grew out of it').
I'm thankful I struggled with this at a time when medications were not easily available or readily prescribed.
Not everyone "grew out of being shy". I know quite shy adults and shy old people. I also know anxious adults and old people. I kind of wish they had treatment back then, because some aspects of my life would be better if they would get therapy. Not having names for issues does not help at all. It just makes it hard to impossible to describe to others what is going on and get reasonable advice. And in the first place, it makes it hard to impossible to know it does not have to be that way.
Literally from the article:
> researchers found that the prevalence rate of neurological diseases and disorders has remained stable over time, with only a 0.2% decrease between 1990 and 2021. Over the same period, deaths from neurological diseases and disorders declined by 15%, meaning more people are living longer with these conditions. As a result, the number of years lived with disability increased by 10%.
I think the point is people embody or create anxiety, whether or not it is a choice. As an emotion the anxiety is inseparable from the person, a dead person cannot be anxious etc.
Then you do not have an anxiety disorder, you just experience the emotion of anxiety.
Similarly, you can be sad, and not have depression. The thing that makes it depression is not being able to trivially drop it. If you 'have anxiety', and can flip it on and off at will, then by the clinical definition you do not have generalized anxiety disorder. That's very nice property of the DSM.
That comment had no advice in it, medical or otherwise. It just described definitions.
However, I would really like to know why would anyone "turned on" own anxiety if they have possibility to not turn it on. What are you gaining from that? Sounds like hitting own leg with a hammer. Even if you can do it ... why?
reply