Even the person who linked it is aware of the biased nature of their link. They said so themselves.

Refuse to read? Do you have cameras in my house? Also did you read it? Just the diction alone is atrociously suffused with a particular intention. I think you would notice how it reads if it was on another topic, I get the sensation you’re not unbiased towards the content.

No person or country needs to do anything. I wasn’t really debating that point, but you’re free to start tangential discussions if you like. Now what people and countries do is the best representation of them. Anyone can talk, actions are what speak.

Ideally information by a source who gains nothing from the numbers being good or bad. It doesn’t take a genius to tell the difference between what would be on some sensationalized state owned news channel vs what is published as an academic paper for the global community.

Lol not unbiased is putting it very lightly. Compare this to how information is displayed on any reputable sources or in studies. This mostly reads like hardcore propaganda. Just compare it to propaganda from any country at any time period vs legitimate research.

So I’m just taking your word for all this or is there some proof of this from a source without an incentive to make the numbers good or bad? China famously doesn’t openly share accurate negative information about itself.

Removed by mod

Most the people I know personally want the conflicts in both locations (and others) to subside.

Is this a thing?. Most people I know personally are pretty for ending suffering for everyone.

Nations aren’t the best for humans and their wellbeing. Religion is pretty bad and politics so far is only marginally better. The one structure that actually seems to be doing well is science.

Everyone else is just WebKit or Gecko

You can use a terminal browser a la lynks2 or w3m

Two years later, how’s the switch been?

Two years later, how’s the switch been?

Two years later, how’s the switch been?

Two years later and you are correct.

Yeah if your machine can be added to a botnet then it will be. Resistance is futile, we are Borg style.

That’s a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.

Calling democracy mob rule is really old. I would at least prefer representatives to be scientists or otherwise the most informed on the subject and policies they are deciding on. I would also prefer all policies to be tested to see if they actually create their desired outcomes. I would prefer the desired outcome to always be increasing human and environmental wellbeing.

He’s not the first but I was thinking about that. I can’t remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.

Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it’s medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it’s dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they’ve been implemented to see if they’re actually working.

Yup just tell group X who dislikes thing Y or group Z that X and Z are bad and you’re in like Flynn.