Me too. The exact same app. I rarely open the play store with other app stores existing but good lord this is bad.
133arc585
joined 2 years ago
"Democracy" in China is significantly more democratic than in places like the USA. In the USA, you're presented with a false dichotomy in the two-party system, where both parties are parties for wealthy interests. Neither party is a party of the people. In China, for example, elections are "non-politicized". Paraphrasing Richard Boer,
'Non-politicized' elections means that elections are not a manifestation of class conflict in antagonistic political parties, but are based on qualifications, expertise, and merit for positions.
When your vote is between candidates based on their qualifications and is not some charade of us-v-them where neither choice actually benefits the people, that is a more democratic system.
The USA is democratic in name only. People in the USA have little to no real political agency, but have been lead to believe their superficial interactions with the political system are real agency.
Because it’s entirely possible that they’re processing the base grain into more refined products before it heads to it’s final destination.
And, as with any speculation, just because something is possible does not guarantee it is happening. As with any speculation, it helps to try to back up your claims.
might look tempting, but another totalitarian authority would have to swoop into the power vacuum created by dedollar-efforts.
Why is this a given?
is this for community meant for tankies??
You don't have to be a "tankie" to see that harm of maintaining dollar hegemony, or to see the potential value in alternative currencies gaining support. And using "tankie" here is just meaningless; you'd add as much value saying "is this community meant for wokies??".
They'll also happily call one time use, or repeated occasional use of "more innocent" drugs like cannabis, "X use disorder". You can be fully functioning, an occasional cannabis smoker, whose symptoms are both unrelated to cannabis use in theory and are confirmed unrelated by stopping usage and not getting symptom relief and yet they'll call your occasional use "cannabis use disorder". And there's no recourse; you can't have a diagnosis taken off your record. And of course in a situation where it's your word against theirs, yours won't be taken seriously, especially if you have a "drug use disorder"! Just like with non-mental health care, the patient being incentivized to lie to their healthcare provider is a horrible situation to be in, and leads to worse outcomes in general. It's also infuriating that being honest about occasional responsible cannabis use means you automatically can not get prescribed several classes of drugs (some of which I have issues with on principle but that's not the point): you can't be prescribed stimulants, you can't be prescribed benzodiazepines, you can't be prescribed narcotic painkillers[^1].
[^1]: This isn't law, it's just operating standards at most places. Especially if you're poor and are recieving government-provided mental health treatment where they have very strict, uniform standards for acceptable treatment by their providers.
The plural of Linux is Linus.
Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Thank you for this. I've only just read the first chapter, and it's already eye-opening how it addresses the Western approach to discourse about China.
I'm not sure why people use anything other than Windows Defender. It literally shares signature databases with most of the large AVs, it doesn't have any anti-features or isn't itself malware/adware/spyware like commercial AVs, it's tightly integrated but also easy to turn on or off (ever tried to uninstall an AV?), and no commercial AV is going to catch anything Windows Defender won't. It's also free and has no need to make money as a product in itself, and so there's no motivation for bad behavior.
The only features some commercial AVs have that Windows Defender doesn't are things like DNS blocking or browser addons (which there are plenty of non-commercial/profit-motive-driven options for: uBlock origin, pi-hole/adguard home, etc).
How much rare-earth metal is mined ethically?
Just because mining may not currently be done ethically doesn't mean it can't be. The whole system needs to be upturned, not just moving away from gasoline, but making sure every step of the supply chain is ethical and environmentaly sound.
How much of it is controlled by “evil” empires (China, Russia)?
See above.
How can hydrogen or electric vehicles be made cheap enough to be sold as non-luxury vehicles?
Several ways. One way, an approach being taken in the USA, is subsidies both to manufacturers and buyers to encourage buying greener vehicles. Also the assumption that production costs will never change--will forever remain high--is nonsense: technological advancements increase efficiency and decrease cost, amortized costs become paid off, and international competition between manufacturers all help keep prices low.
The fact of the matter that is, until non-evil solutions are actually designed, switching from petroleum fuel to biofuel shouldn’t be overlooked. Ignoring biofuel in favor of non-solutions like electric and hydrogen vehicles
You can pretend the solutions that are materially in front of you don't exist, but they do. You act as if they're pies in the sky, or undiscovered future technology. They're neither. They exist, materially, in the real world and are in use now. And they can only get better (more efficient, cheaper, more ethical, etc).
We’ll just keep burning oil instead of much cleaner biofuels in the meantime.
Here's the problem with your reasoning: if we say "let's move to biofuels", you're just going to provide reason to keep producing ICEs. As long as ICEs are being produced, purchased, and used, there is inherently less demand for alternatives. People are also not going to buy better solutions if they've recently purchased an ICE vehicle.
As I said earlier, the whole system needs to be upturned. There is no reason every human needs their own car; there is no reason people need to drive an hour each way to work, or half an hour each way to a shop, all the while having a single person in the car. Your concern of overpriced alternatives is not an issue when the cost is consolidated into, say, a slightly more expensive (up-front) bus. People need to walk, bike, and take public transport more. More and better public transportation needs to be designed and implemented. Cities need to be designed to make having a car not only less necessary, but less desirable.
find evidence
lol
We’ve been over this
No, we haven't. For someone so hellbent on pretending they're calling out bad-faith arguments, you're falling in to one now: asking for sources is not always sealioning. If someone is spewing bold claims, sometimes in sequence in an effort to combine them to come to conclusions that are questionable by nature of not having a grounding in fact, without providing evidence, is that not a problem? Seemingly, you're saying the problem only comes about from someone who responds and asks for a source. Making bold claims should require you to provide evidence; asking for evidence of bold claims is not the problem.
At this point, I really shouldn't bother talking to you anymore. You've made it very clear you are not actually here in good faith (your version of good faith is playing games, not to have real discussion). I'm offended by your approach, and haven't been driven to meaningful thought by your comments.
You will always have racist cops and neighbors and teachers. That is not systemic.
If the system does not prevent, stop, or punish the racist constituent actors (cops, neighbors, teachers), is it not racist? Is it not systemic racism to not stop individual acts of racism, especially when they're performed by agents of the state (e.g., cops, lawmakers, judges, teachers)? Just because it's not a top-down demand by the state of "you, agent of the state, must act racist" does not mean it's not systemic racism.
That is just shitty people.
There is no such thing as a system as such. It's just people. If the members are racist, and their collective doesn't do anything to address (or even occasionally rewards) that behavior, the system is racist.
No, it was submitted to ArXiv which doesn't require or perform peer review.