133arc585

If you support the death penalty then you believe either:

• The government's judgements are infallible and it would never falsely execute an innocent person, OR
• You are okay with the government executing an innocent person.

I definitely don't think they're infallible, as there are loads of cases where people are exonerated only after serving decades in prison, or after their death. And I'm definitely not okay with the government executing an innocent person.

• Decreased performance, as DRM is often hooked deep into event loops and adds non-negligible overhead.
• Decreased privacy, as DRM often requires pinging an external server constantly.
• Decreased security, as DRM is a black-box blob intentionally meant to be difficult to peer in to, and has been the target of attacks such as code execution vulnerabilities before.
• If you own a game but don't have an active internet connection, DRM may prevent you from playing the game.
• If you own a game but have multiple computers, DRM may force you to buy multiple licenses when you're only using one copy at a time (c.f., a physical CD with the game on it).
• Eventually, a DRM company is going to go out of business or stop supporting old versions of their software; if you want to play an old game that had that DRM, you won't be able to even if you own the game.
• &c.

DRM exists to "protect' the software developer, i.e. protect profits by making sure every copy has been paid for and to force people to buy multiple copies in certain cases. DRM never has and never will be for your (the consumer's) benefit.

horseshoe crabs are always referred to with the word horseshoe in front

They weren't in this case, so that "always" seems to be a stretch.

if one cares about communication.

It's made clear in the article. If one cares about communication they're reading past a headline.

Horseshoe "blood" is blue, and it's not actually blood it's hemolymph. It is blue crab blood. Blue blood from a crab.

• Chinese Communist Party
• Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang
• China Democratic League
• China National Democratic Construction Association
• China Association for Promoting Democracy
• Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
• China Zhi Gong Party
• Jiusan Society
• Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

What a weird framing you're taking. They're literally threats. They're contingent threats, but they're still threats. Your claim was that they have not made threats; in reality, they have.

Also: isn't every threat contingent? If the threat is "I will use nukes if X event occurs" it's contingent on X occurring. If the threat is "I will use nukes" then it's still contingent, but the contingency is implied: "I will use nukes if I want to". There is no such thing as a threat that isn't contingent.

In fact, since you asserted that the only threats had come from the US, can you point to any sources from the US that are threats (and let's use your definition of threats here, too: you don't get to point to a contingent threat)?

Really shifting the goalposts there.

You start with

The only nuclear threats have some from the US.

Then someone provides a list of such events that are from Russia and not the US, then you shift to

Every single one of these is outlined as a response to military aggression.

The original commenter didn't say they were without context. They simply said that the threats were made, which they were. You were so adamant that they weren't made that when you were shown proof that they were made, you have to reframe it.

Is there a transcript available?

Who has spent the most on this conflict? Hint: it's not Russia; it's not even Ukraine; nor is it any European country or...any other country. The USA has spent more on this conflict than any other country, including Russia. Who platformed Nazis, embedded them into the military complex, and helped put them in positions of power within NATO? You guessed it, the USA. Do you think the USA is some independent third party observer here?

Thank you, I'll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don't see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can't engage in imperialism/colonialism.

I don't think you're doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I'm having. You're doing a lot to make sure it's obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I'm mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you're asserting that socialism can't lead to imperialism. You've still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:

Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.

And I agree that, by definition, it's a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I'm not justifying imperialism at all, but it's a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you're trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You're saying socialism can't engage in imperialism by definition but the most I'd give is that it doesn't engage in imperialism in practice.

I don't see how that follows.

Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.

Socialism's goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can't it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?

There is definitely no other way.

Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it's definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.

Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you're acting as if it should be obvious why what you're saying is true but it absolutely is not.