[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Seems entirely unrelated.

The issue with .ml domains was only its free offerings, not its paid ones. And you can thank Meta for that. They sued the registrar managing several ccTLDs, including .ml, .ga, .gq, .cf, and .tk. Meta even goes so far to fabricate a conspiracy theory about the registrar being part of a cybercriminal ring.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Was that supposed to be some sort of joke or do you actually not know Orwell himself was: a rapist, a snitch, a plagiarist, and a racist? One man, four horrible qualities.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

In hindsight, yes. But there was no indiciation ahead of time that this situation would happen or was likely to happen. In fact, there was no more reason to believe a free ccTLD was any more likely than a paid ccTLD to cause a problem. The problem arises because a ccTLD's host country can choose to remove any domain it wants, paid or not. One could argue that using a ccTLD at all was a mistake, but you'd have to look at precedent for ccTLD's country's doing this and see if it happens often or not.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Silence trimming is something you need to be careful of. If you listen to any comedy podcasts or storytelling, silence (pauses) have meaning and value. If you just listen to news or talk podcasts, its pretty nice to have. I have it turned on or off for selected podcasts, and it tells me it's trimmed over 1 full day of silence from my listening.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Ok then you're wilfully misreading the quote. That quote is not cryptic in the least. I have no clue why the parent comment is framing it as "holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy". It doesn't follow from the quote in any way.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I want to point out that the fraction of imports/exports between the USA and China is roughly symmetric (by monetary value). In 2022, about 16% of China's exports were to the USA; in 2021, about 17% of the USA's imports were from China.

That being said, you're probably making a valid point about which items are flowing, not just the raw value of goods.

Also, I would think it's generally easier for a producer to find new buyers of what it's already producing, than for a buyer to find a new producer for what it needs.

Edit to add: If we look at the ratio "Exports/Imports", we have about 0.3 for the USA with China, and we have about 3.3 for China with the USA.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

in china choosing not to use it affects your social credit score, and whether you can buy a house or ride the bus.

Do you have any source that says that using TikTok is mandatory in China, or that not using it does what you're asserting?

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The weaseliness comes from the fact that you took what definitely did happen and phrased it as "probably happened". You also took what one country definitely did, and tacked on a "well most countries were doing bad things" immediately after. That's what is bothering me. It's the whole "well it might not have happened, and if it did, they weren't the only ones, and even if they were, it was a necessary evil" goalpost shifting.

I’m very opposed to the world war alliance but understand the shitty circumstances

By "understand the shitty circumstances" you're seemingly saying that it made sense to make the alliance. But you're, once again, ignoring my point: if the cost of that alliance is that you must provide volunteers to kill Jews, you are in the wrong.

And I do see the agenda you’re set on.

Please, enlighten me. The only agenda I have here is to call out the minimizing of Nazi-collaboration that happened, including the murder of Jews, as some sort of "necessary evil" alliance.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He cheated on his wife with his producer, Lisa, who I think he later went on to marry after leaving his wife.

He showed sexually explicit texts between Lisa and himself on air, not just once, but twice. If that wasn't enough, he also showed his penis on air in much the same way.

He's made racist comments on air, including saying "they all look alike" in reference to black people, and saying blacks and hispanics are responsible for all crime.

He's abusive to his employees, such as when he said "Fuck you you’re dead to me" and threatened to punch Brian Brushwood in the face, after (show hosts) Brian and Justin Robert Young were banned from TWiT with no public reason provided. They didn't badmouth Leo or TWiT, not that that would excuse that behavior anyway. He seemingly can't control his anger, even on air, and verbally attacks his engineers for any mistake they make. He also is no stranger to attacking his guests/co-hosts on air.

Sarah Lane, co-host of one of (if not the) biggest shows on the network at the time, spoke about workplace sexual harassment (it might be worse than it looks). His interview with Cali Lewis is rather uncomfortable to watch; there is a tasteful and appropriate way to have the conversation, and then there's the creepiness with which he approached it. Not to mention how inappropriate it was in the context to really have the conversation at all.

Not that I'm generally a fan of this sort of website, but there's a website devoted to documented Leo's disgusting actions. If you can get past the editorializing, it is still useful to document things that actually happened. You can ignore the editorialising entirely and just watch the video clips they uploaded if that suits you.

Overall, my opinion of the man is:

  • He has absolutely no sense of appropriate behavior in a given context. Some actions are acceptable (calling out your engineers for repeat mistakes) but not in all contexts (on air); likewise for attacking guests.
  • He is a sexual pervert who can't put in the required effort to keep his professional and sex life adequately separate.
  • As an employer, he doesn't treat his employees with respect. That's not to mention workplace sexual harassment.
  • He only got as far as he did because he had a massive advantage of having his previous TV shows and radio shows--this is how he got most of his early advertisers (most of whom stuck with the network).
[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He made the donation when he was CEO of Mozilla in 2008. He lost his job at Mozilla due to his anti-LGBT stance.

He also spreads COVID misinformation.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

133arc585

joined 1 year ago