Are you trying to argue that laws and treaties are worthless unless enough people abide by them and are willing to enforce them?

Because, yes, that is the fundamental principle of society: We need to work together to survive and thrive, so we agree on rules by which we work, and enforce them on those that break them. If you disagree with something but take no steps to oppose it, your disagreement is just as worthless as a law nobody cares to enforce.

So what point are you trying to make here? “If China enforced their claim and nobody stopped them, their claim would be effectively valid”? How is that relevant to the situation if all they’re doing is protesting, but nobody else cares to back them up and they don’t actually take measures to prevent the passage?

“If I put pineapple on my Pizza and nobody stops or punishes me, it’s legal”? Yes. Congrats. You understood the very basics. Want a sticker?

“Nobody” probably isn’t literal here, but I imagine some manager scheduling a meeting where they want a report on the game’s performance and feedback during the beta. Some higher up is going to sit in for the first few minutes for the KPI summary.

The sweating analyst jokes about the heat in the room, the higher up dryly remarks that the AC seems to be working just fine. The presentation starts, the analyst grasping for some more weasel words and void sentences to stall with before finally switching to the second slide, captioned “Player count”. It’s a big, fat 0.

They stammer their way through half a sentence of trying to describe this zero, then fall silent, staring at their shoes. The game dev lead has a thousand yard stare. The product owner is trying to maintain composure.

The uncomfortable silence is finally broken by the manager, getting up to leave: “I think we’re done here.” There is an odd sense of foreboding, that “here” might not just mean the meeting. The analyst silently proceeds to the next slide, showing the current player count over time in a line chart.

Devs be applying like “Hi! I’d like to join your development team! My professional qualifications are that I’ve spent eight years working on a failed game!”

Of course, it won’t be the individual devs’ fault but I don’t have any difficulties imagining that some of them have a harder time finding new jobs than people who were let go after the launch of more popular games.

I’ll plug an interesting blog post on the topic of using chemical weapons. The post concerns itself mostly with lethal weapons, but I feel like some of the points apply here as well.

The essence is that for modern military systems, mobility and the relative cost of manufacturing, storing and employing (lethal) chemical weapons compared to protective equipment render them much less valuable than conventional explosive munitions. They see usage mostly between weaker static armies, which lack the equipment, training or command doctrines for modern warfare.

The banning of chemical weapons was done because they weren’t generally very useful for the modern systems of the superpowers at the time. Russia cracking them out again suggests they no longer have all the capabilities of a modern superpower. Which probably isn’t super new for most people, but might be worth spelling out anyway.

Right? Fourth Estate doing its job, bitch. They spend enough time sucking capitalist dick, let them have this.

A vacation in a foreign land
Mother Russia does the best she can

Last I heard, there were some issues about who owns the IP and copyrights? I’m not overly familiar, but legal jungle combined with corporate politics may be scary enough to navigate that Miyazaki would rather be careful around making explicit statements

Don’t fucking jinx it. Just don’t.

They’d have to almost unanimously decide that being entirely unanimous is no longer required, bending the rules to change the rules, because that is the only way to unfuck themselves. Let Hungary object, but if they’re alone, write it into law anyway. What are they gonna do, leave? I guess if their membership is no longer useful to Russia, they might.

Sorry, irony didn’t translate well there. It was supposed to be a parody of the binary mindset “I don’t wanna think about nuance and individual differences, just enemies and allies”.

Also, forgive my cynicism, but I’m not confident that every middle school teaches that level of critical thinking. I’m not actually sure we even touched on that in high school. I’m from Germany, but my school was rather centrist with respect to the Overton Window at the time. Much of history was painted rather black and white and avoided complicated details about morality.

They can both be bad and there are more than two parties in every situation.

All that nuance is making my head hurt. Can’t I just say “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? It sounds so much simpler and snappier.

If I’m reading it right, the OP meant something like this:

The US block Palestinian membership on the condition of negotiations with Israel, but don’t impose the same restriction (negotiations eith Palestine) on Israel’s membership. Why does Israel get to be a member without negotiation, but Palestine doesn’t?

(Not taking a stance here, argue with the OP if you want to. I’m just contributing my understanding.)

Survivor Bias - you only see the ones that “survive”, which may lead you to underestimate just how many tried and failed and vanished from attention.

A chunk of their target audience aren’t really gamers so much as FIFA players. They don’t buy a lot of games, so they don’t mind splurging on the newest and most up to date installment of their favourite soccer sim once per year.

Some Sekiro, some X3: Terran Conflict. Taking on a whole squadron of enemies with a single (albeit powerful) ship to calmly dispatch them one by one is just the perfect mix of cozy and power fantasy for me to wind down between the more fast-paced sections of “Let’s chop you down as fast as possible because the longer the fight drags on the more mistakes I’ll make”.

Recognising an issue vs diagnosing it vs. figuring out a treatment. You can notice chest pains and shortness of breath, perhaps make an educated guess that it could be a heart attack, but it’s going to take an expert to diagnose whether that’s actually the case and what course of action to take.

A much higher number of justifications for that government to crack down even further. First you demonize the enemy, then you strike against them, and when they inevitably defend themselves, you have a justification to kill the people trying to kill yours. That playbook is millenia old and still works.

Albrecht has owned it for most of its existence. The first TJ was opened '67, Albrecht owned the chain since '79, so out of itd 56 years, 48 have been in possession of himself or his family.

The name ALDI literally stood for “Albrecht’s Discount”. It was part of their concept from the start. We can bicker about quality, but if you don’t have the luxury of choice, their prices are generally good here in Germany too.

More specifically, by the heirs of Theo Albrecht, one of the two brothers that founded the two Aldi companies.