In an election with stakes like this one though, doesnt maximizing their chances for a win also serve that? Like, being rich offers you some protection from the law, especially in a corrupt regime, but when the other side is an actual authoritarian, half-assing it so that they win while also being publicly against them is dangerous to one’s personal safety. Even rich people dont tend to get away with being against authoritarians, when they are in charge. If all you care about is power and influence, and you dont actually have any values beyond that, and one side is an authoritarian, then being on their side serves your interest, and being put in power to stop them serves your interest, but publicly failing to stop them puts a target on your back and gives you no power and influence by which to ward it off.

I mean, I feel like it is quite fair to blame the people who voted for Trump for Harris’s loss tbh. I don’t really buy the "the dems would win if they didn’t just refuse to try to win over conservatives and instead promised to go all-in on progressive policy that I’ve seen lately. I wish we got more progressive policy too, but it’s not like they don’t have any idea what people want, they have whole teams of people whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing. If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn’t they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn’t want that policy, but that isn’t really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn’t like would win them power, they’d just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected. It’s happened for state and congressional races before, so it’s not like that’s never been thought of.

I don’t think Harris’s loss is down to refusing to say the right words to inspire her base or anything like that, it’s down to the fact that, somehow, Trump is very good at inspiring his. She gave it a decent shot, but it’s very hard to win an election against a massive cult of personality. He, and the people that support him, are the problem here.

Iirc the Russian casualty rate was supposedly on the order of 1000 a day recently, so probably implying the former.

Did the judge actually determine it, or did the judge just relay information given to them by someone else?

Honestly I suspect it would do the opposite, Lemmy is a bit of a echo chamber and while users here heavily skew towards favoring Palestine in this, or at least condemning what Isreal is and honestly has long been doing to them, the US as a whole, even the base of the democratic party, has long been at least mildly friendly towards Isreal, and a large fraction will see Hamas’s attack as justifying Isreali action. It’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for the dems I think where their current path angers progressives on the left, and actively sanctioning Isreal would probably anger the more center-right side of the party, and they need both to turn out to win. They probably figure that at the end of the day, the left either is mostly younger people that don’t vote as reliably, or will bite their tongues and vote for them, because, well, if you’re given only two possible futures, both evil, and a choice between them, one has a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil, no matter how evil that lesser is, just because by definition, the greater evil is worse. But the center-right, they probably figure, probably don’t care about what is happening as much, and will feel much less uncomfortable about just voting for the republicans instead if the dem candidate doesn’t do what they want.

That being said, it doesn’t really much matter, ethically, if not helping kill tens of thousands of innocent people makes it slightly harder to win political power for yourself, it’s still a pretty horrible excuse. Nobody sitting in a jury would let someone go free if they were accused of being an accomplice to a murder, if that accomplice’s defense was “well, I’m running for mayor, and if I didn’t help the murderer, his friends probably won’t vote for me”. Like I get that Kamala isn’t really calling the shots on that, being only vice president currently, but she doesn’t seem like she intends to change how Biden has handled the situation much.

Don’t get me wrong, I am voting for her, I’m not one of those people that thinks that it is somehow noble to just let the greater evil win if it means not taking an action that helps the lesser evil beat it, I think that the going for the best outcome plausibly available is always the right thing to do and that doing the reverse because “well my hands are clean” is a misguided and self centered way to do ethics, but like damn people (to which I mean the people that actually side with Isreal in this, and the DNC I guess, not they they see my tired internet ranting), just because the other option is as close as the country has come in a century to “literally Hitler” does not mean that you have to emulate Churchill refusing to help the Bengalis.

Sweden in general seems to have way more good game dev companies than most countries, especially most of similar size. I kinda wonder why.

to be fair, though politicians are usually rich, we dont want a system wherein they have to be rich, or where compromising information on a high level politician gets to a hostile power just because while said politician was running they were a cheapskate about who they hired for security

Funnily enough, in an actual coincidence, Hitler himself also had a nephew (well half-nephew, but still) who hated and wrote about him (to the point of joining the US military while it was at war with his uncle, even).

And that’d be reasonable for you to do. However, having a network choose to remove something, or cut ties with servers in the network that don’t in an attempt to persuade them to remove that thing, isn’t exactly the same as a government ordering a thing be removed. The former doesn’t give much avenue for a malicious actor to suppress something that isn’t in their interest, because they can hardly control the collective actions of users on the network, but the latter does by creating a single point of decision making on the network’s content from the outside. Not that the motivations in wanting that video gone were bad, but there is an element of risk to making it possible for a government entity to remove something from a social network, even if the thing they want gone this time is something that really shouldn’t be there.

The Henry Ford of our time (except for Elon not having the mechanical skills I guess). Musk probably would take that as a compliment, but I mean it as an insult

I mean, they have nukes, actually invading them with intent to actually conquer them or permanently take significant parts of the country would be a risky move regardless of how depleted their stocks get.

Ah, sounds like someone going for the herostratus approach to fame

Japan was nuked at a time when the realities around nuclear weapons (namely, the hostile nation having them too, or an ally of theirs) were different. The strategy around them is dramatically different now from then.

The point of building nukes isn’t really to launch a nuke at someone, it’s to make others decide that attacking you is too risky. Missile defense isn’t perfect, so even if it probably would stop them, there’s still a risk one gets through, that someone would have to take into consideration before launching an attack. It’s even more a threat against Isreal, since they have less time to intercept, and even one missile getting through would destroy a comparatively larger fraction of the country, being that it’s fairly small.

I mean, if you were the leader of a country that was under active invasion by a enemy with numerical and firepower superiority, would you not do the same? Given the circumstances, he’d arguably be failing his people if he did not pursue whatever avenue to get more aid that he can

I mean, having a hostage generally implies your intent is to hold that person captive in exchange for a demand being fulfilled, after which point you at least claim that you will release them. Presumably, Israel doesnt intend or claim that it will release those it has imprisoned even if it gets what it wants, so calling them hostages wouldnt really be accurate. One could call the people held by Hamas prisoners too I suppose, since that just implies them to be held against their will, but as they are explicitly being held in order to be used as a bargaining chip, calling them hostages adds more information about the situation than just calling them prisoners too would.

Youre wrong on all counts there, but most importantly to the actual topic of discussion, a negotiated settlement in which the aggressor is just given some of the territory they are attempting to conquer (which is exactly what a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia as the war has gone thus far would have been, because what else could Ukraine have possibly offered to convince Russia that it was worth it to give up their attack?) is not a wish for peace, its a wish for appeasement. It sounds like peace at first glance, sure, but by rewarding aggressive action, it gives every incentive for the aggressor to simply attack again later, in the hope of gaining more concessions. If this kind of policy led to peace, there never would have been a second world war. I do not like war the way you seem to think, but I do not want it tomorrow either. Ensuring that there is as little incentive as possible for those with the means to start them to do so, requires that those that start wars are not allowed to gain by doing so, and Russia has indisputably started this one, therefore to ensure peace, it must lose.

It would be great if all peace took was for everyone involved to sit down and talk, but as you say, the world is not like that.

Is that really the best response you can think of?

-“Give me your home.”

“Wtf, no!”

-“Well then I’ll kill you for it then”

Some random observer: “I wish they’d negotiated and just given the guy half of their home, then we’d not be in this situation…”

I mean not voting just makes things worse, faster. A thing can still be worth doing even if it does not magically fix everything