• 53 Posts
Joined há 4 anos
Cake day: mai 15, 2019


From what I can tell, neither country has a particularly strong claim to them. It’s just that the South China Sea has a strong strategic value, both militarily and as a passage for shipping goods. The US has for decades been doing freedom of navigation operations with the aim of disrupting any norm around disputed claims, particularly when island building is involved.

Interesting, I’ve nothing bad to say about the typical ride experience. I usually get a car quickly and can get to where I need to go. That said, there was one person who was not a great driver. They managed to miss an exit, putting us a few miles our way while I was sitting in the back seat with a broken arm. That was… interesting. That’s where taxi companies are general better, since there is a higher barrier to entry.

I’ve never experienced surge pricing, but from what I understand it is successful at its aim: getting cars to where they are needed fast. That said, I can understand feeling fleeced.

But yeah, my main complaint is really that big businesses were able to essentially subsidize rides initially, then take advantage of their position once they cornered the market.

Cuba the courts have handed down draconian prison sentences to hundreds of people for protesting for their rights

Setting aside the wrongs of the US, is this statement inaccurate?

I guess I’m more concerned about the short term well being of the drivers than anything else. Surge pricing at least has a purpose, to attract drivers to an area. And with self-driving cars, I like the idea of using them as a solution to the last mile problem in transit.

I do 99% of the time, but public transportation is often either very slow or not present at all. Take going out to see my aunt. Luckily I can take a light rail train most of the way. However, I then have to get on an infrequent bus. It can mean a trip taking an hour and a half, both ways. And that’s in a relatively good transit city for its size and being in North America. Late night also tends to not be great for transit, though I can bike just fine then.

Basically, I rely on bike and bus for most of my transportation, but use Uber/Lyft to fill in for the times when those preferred options won’t cut it.

Lyft/Uber. They had a strategy of eliminating their taxi company competition by flooding the market with such low fares that the taxis couldn’t compete. That said, the taxi companies had a miserable reputation in many cities. They often came late or not at all, they usually required a phone call to dispatch, and they were quite expensive. But still, the tactics Lyft and Uber used to gain market dominance was dirty and monopolistic.

The flip side of this is that I can avoid the trap of car ownership, with all of its problems and expenses.

I can’t form a response if all you’re going to do is link me to that document yet again without even saying how it contradicts me. Was it encirclement? That can’t be, because the document doesn’t address that. Was it weakening Russia? The document is focused on that, but I straight out said that the US is trying to weaken Russia. So what is it that I’m supposedly lying about?

About what? I included several points. Also, that’s ultimately just a research paper, even if RAND is a quasi-governmental think tank. Going back to it again and again as an authoritative document is a bad look. While it may be used to form US policy, no one is obligated to do so.

The encirclement claim does not match with the facts. Around 6% of Russia borders a NATO country. 6% falls quite a few percentage points short of 100%. And in case you didn’t notice, NATO has no interest in fighting Russia. It could have directly stepped into the conflict in Ukraine at any point and absolutely crushed Russian forces. It has not because the consequences would be so dire. That said, weaken? Absolutely. But hopefully future relationships can normalize again once Russia’s elite get over their Great Russia imperialist ambitions.

Er… pretty sure there’s a difference between being in the same space and literally being in same space. Or are we good with the US targeting Russian aircraft now?

Yup. Each is better at what it is good at. Neither is, strictly speaking, better than the other.

It’s international waters, not Russian national territory. The US can be there if it wants. But if a balloon flies over US air space, the US does have the right to shoot it down, especially if it is deemed a threat.

If Russia’s going to engage in chest puffing, surely they can do so in a way that doesn’t involve dumping a bunch of kerosene into the Black Sea?

Ironically, in Portland we got some our coldest weather on record, with multiple severe cold snaps. But yeah, global warming, not local warming.

“People like you”? I’m calling out China’s claims as being bullshit (as are many other country’s claims, and historical claims like France’s colonial land grabs). And what sort of insult is “wordsmith weasel” supposed to be? That sounds almost like a complement.

It’s a reef with dredged up sand dumped on it. It is not a valid claim. Definitely international waters.

Sailing through international waters. Literally terrorism.

Why are usa ships near china.

What are you talking about? These are hundreds of miles from China’s shores.

Meanwhile China dumps fill on coral reefs in an attempt to take over the territorial waters of other countries, then makes pitiful cries when the US sails right through their false claims. China would match the US sin for sin throughout the modern era if it had the capability.

Good thing China would never think to do that to its own citizens and worldwide.

Okay fair, I absolutely use mine as my one and only source of personal transportation.

Is this a serious question? Just because two things share characteristics doesn’t mean they are the same. A bicycle has wheels, brakes, and a steering method. It is not a car.

Israel bombs Syrian airport that is receiving shipments from Iran. It’s al-Assad’s fault because he’s a hungry cookie monster for power.


Regardless of what you think of Israel, this is yet again the people of Syria suffering so al-Assad can increase his power.

Huh. that’s never really clicked with me. Thanks for the description!

I generally like Lemmy’s design, with one exception. There is no formally structured recognition of rules for a community. There’s just a blob of text that the community moderators have to somehow structure in a visually appealing way. Because there is no recognition of rules, the reporting dialog box does not allow for simply selecting in a drop down, since there is nothing to select from.

As the prevalence of bots and AI systems continues to increase, people may begin to lose trust in online interactions altogether.

I’ve noticed on Lemmy that a few users that disagree with me politically occasionally accuse me of being a bot. Not even a paid shill, but instead a piece of AI generating text. This possibility is already oncoming.

Or when USA decides no more free war machines.

Thing is, from the US’s standpoint this is, to put it coldly, a great cost-benefit ratio. The cost to the US has been chump change, with much of the transferred equipment nearing end of life anyway. Meanwhile, European allies are fiercely determined to make this very painful for Russia so there isn’t a repeat performance.

I also wouldn’t call Russia’s actions imperialist as everything going on in eastern Europe the Russian response to NATO expansion.

If you buy the narrative about NATO expansion being equivalent to imperialism, sure. Or you could see it as a bunch of countries being afraid of Russia, so they joined NATO to gain protection. The narrative that NATO is going to attack Russia is simply wrong. It never has attacked Russia, and even with sending weapons to Ukraine it is supplying a nation purely with weapons against a foreign invader. Russia citizens could be immune from NATO supplied weapons tomorrow if Russia stopped the invasion.

We stop with our objection to collective punishment [just] because it doesn’t fly with all sorts of courts. We take the gloves off.

This Knesset member is actively advocating for collective punishment, which is recognized internationally as a crime against humanity.

Oh, this is so cool. I have found myself discarding vast quantities of SCOBY in previous attempts at home brewing. It would be great to put that byproduct to use.

By whom, please show actual evidence for this fantastical claim.

The source was a book that I don’t have access to. I’m trying to find an authoritative source that explains the exact practices. So far I found this article that I’m loath to pay for:


I also found this article from 2008: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20192237

My impression is that especially under Xi, the NPC has turned even more ceremonial. Note how the vote to allow Xi another term, a break with a tradition that lasted since Mao, had only two dissenting votes in a body of thousands of people. There’s no way that less than 0.1% of people in China would have preferred to stick with tradition. I can fully believe that he’s popular, but he’s not that popular.

In practice, political elites set the agenda and the NPC is there only to give it the appearance of legitimacy. It’s no mystery why as part of China breaking the back of Hong Kong’s democracy movement, one of their first moves was disqualifying any candidates who might not toe the line.

Okay, I’m in the middle of reading over the material. So far, I noticed that the structure nominally puts the grassroots as the supreme power via the National People’s Congress. However, that body has been characterized as a rubber stamp parliament, with the party leadership able to manipulate elections at all levels of the congressional election system. To use the nervous system analogy, while commoners are technically the source of power, the leadership can apply anesthesia whenever and wherever it wants.

I’ve been scratching my head over this for a while as I’ve been reading up on the structure of China’s government. It sounds like only the Central Committee operates on democratic centralism. But that seems to have little to do with the a democratic mandate stemming from the people, since the Central Committee is largely chosen in private.

I guess if you define democracy extremely loosely as “I feel represented” this works. It’s just not a very systematic way to provide representation. It’s also extremely susceptible to manipulation in a very locked down media environment, which describes China pretty well.

Python 3.11.0 final is now available
[what's new](https://docs.python.org/3.11/whatsnew/3.11.html#what-s-new-in-python-3-11)

RustConf 2022 Schedule
It's happening! ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/678e3ac2-6334-4eee-8ab7-960470fd8c23.mp4)

Idea pitch: Carbon pricing with anti-volatility
The idea is to have the least painful way to introduce a carbon tax. As the current elevated prices fall, a carbon tax would be introduced. The main issue with carbon taxes historically is that they're rather unpopular. They need a spoon full of sugar to make the medicine go down. Therefore this one would have a couple of extra features. One has been explored elsewhere, having the revenue rebated back to taxpayers. The other feature I haven't seen. It would throttle the tax around a rolling multiyear average of prices from some sort of index. Prices go up, tax goes down. Prices go down, tax goes back up to match. In this way, the traditionally volatile energy market gets a built-in buffer. A fund created by the carbon tax could be used to pay out the rebate at a steady rate instead of sporadically. How does this sound? Hair brained? Hopeless? Or maybe - just maybe - it has a chance of being workable?