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.

There was also evidence that these balloons had equipment on board that did not line up with what is expected on a weather balloon.

Do you mind sharing your evidence? Because that's not what was officially reported by the Pentagon. It was reported that it had off-the-shelf components (i.e., exactly what you'd expect on a weather balloon), and didn't collect or transmit anything.

Chinese spy balloon didn’t collect intelligence as it flew over US: Pentagon:

The Chinese spy balloon that was shot down over the Atlantic Ocean in early February was built, at least partly, using American off-the-shelf parts, a U.S. official has confirmed to ABC News. [...] Later Thursday, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said that the balloon not only did not transmit data back to China -- it never collected any.

You'll note that media still insists on using the phrase "spy balloon" when it was just a weather balloon. They even said as much, and they still use fearmongering phrasing because they know it serves their narrative.

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.

No point lying. If you check the modlog plenty of his comments get removed. You can check for yourself.

I'll just summarize my point: if you think you have educational value in your comments, that value is nil if the comment gets removed.

As someone who largely agrees with the content of what you have to say, your delivery is absolutely disgusting. You litter every comment with personal attacks, insults, and are needlessly offensive. I genuinely don't know if you think that aggression helps get your point across, but it doesn't. And, considering how many of your comments get removed by mods for that insult and disrespect, you should realize that even if you personally think it's constructive, the mods don't. If you think the content of your comments is valuable, don't you think it'd have more value if it is left up for others to see, instead of having it removed where nobody can learn from it? If you resort to this namecalling and aggression so much, and the comments get removed, they're of no value. As an outside observer, by reading your comments, I'm less likely to trust what you have to say, and instead would assume you have a set agenda that you won't stray from. Your behavior detracts from your trustworthiness.

• 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.

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?