You need to treat them nicely and maybe show a bit of romance. Poems, flowers, even a printed picture of flowers, something nice that will last is all it takes and your instruments will work perfectly for you. Each person may need to contribute individually to the shrine.

I swear, some damned tech came in on a PM and removed my poem from my favorite HPLC and now it's been acting up for me nonstop.

Yeah, some companies seem to be allergic to standards, hence the need for the final disclaimer.

Oh, this shit is funny!

Offset is a platform that aims to generate high integrity, premium carbon credits from industrial sabotage and direct actions. At the heart of our work is an innovative new methodology for quantifying the climate benefits of political actions that publically disrupt carbon flows.

...

Our Approach

Carbon offsets apply the logic of capitalism to atmospheric interactions. This logic assumes that all activities on earth can be quantified and abstracted, and therefore exchanged. Offsets produce the capacity to outsource the effects of one’s consumption—at the scale of the individual, the corporation, or even the nation state—to someone, somewhere else, even to the generations of the future. In short, many existing carbon offset markets act to maintain a status quo rather than address root causes of the climate catastrophe.

In contrast, the Offset platform includes a registry of alternative offsets that focus on social exchanges and political actions in order to contribute to a program of highly financialized radical change.

...

Institutional Support

Offset (version 0.1) was commissioned by the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, Melbourne, for Data Relations.

C or AC = clear all

CE = clear entry

That said, there are variations based on brand and model.

No evidence this is real, but people create language through usage and I like this. You have my support, etm.

Easy solution: don't go. You're leaving, you don't owe them your time.

And your email account will never recover. They'll sell it like it's going out of style.

Here's a paper covering the topic from a few years ago.. It goes through the history, motivations, and effects of the Golden Shield Project. It also briefly covers the opinions from people on both sides of the firewall and tries to remain neutral as it's a research communication. Download the PDF to read.

What the paper doesn't cover deeply is what information the CPC has chosen to censor and why. Materials subversive to the stability of their country. From whom? Of what nature? What historical precedent exists that would have made them want to do this in the late nineties?

Exploring the history of interactions between socialist countries and liberal countries will shed light on this. I'd also suggest looking into examples of censorship in western liberal countries and contrasting them with censorship in China.

Your reply pointed to a lot of assumptions from the Western liberal perspective, which is actively antagonistic and hostile towards China. If the only perspective you ever consume is from states who consider China a threat to their power, then of course you will hold a negative bias towards China.

The more you study, the better you will understand. If you approach the topic wanting to demonize China, you won't learn anything. There's a lot more to unpack here including Western media bias and leftist theory beyond Marx. This is just a stepping stone to understanding.

If you don't know the purpose and goals of the project that the firewall is part of, then you don't understand why China has a firewall.

Tell me, are you really free or do you assume you are free because you've always been told you are free and you've only ever heard one definition of freedom? To me, the illusion of freedom of speech, the illusion of freedom of choice, and being told to choose between a handful of shitheads who don't represent or act according to how I would like to see our society run is not freedom. It's just authoritarianism from a different source. It's who has power that matters to me. I'd rather be held accountable by my peers than by a bunch of chucklefucks who only see me as an expendable resource.

It gets worse than this.

Not only does most scientific instrument software become abandonware, but there are companies that sell instruments that use the exact same components as they did 20 years ago. The only difference is now they swapped the stainless steel parts for plastic and charge luxury car prices for what will be a piece of garbage in 3 years. These pieces have nothing to do with chemical compatibility and everything to do with increasing the frequency of maintenance that the older models never needed.

I felt the same way until I started trying to correct errors in my professional field of research and they stubbornly refused to fix the errors despite a wealth of primary literature showing that the current scientific consensus contradicts what was written on Wikipedia.

As useful as it is for science, it has serious issues. I wish I could say I haven't found many similar errors or poor/outright contradictory sourcing over the last decade. They need to seriously examine their own biases and restructure their editing process. Wikipedia is one of my favorite human projects, but that doesn't mean we should ignore its flaws.

Revisionism!

Everyone knows these days drones drop the bombs, not soldiers.

Give the soldier an Xbox controller and some medals.

Who was it that stopped Pol Pot again? And who was it who supported Pol Pot even after his party was removed from power?

If you want to use history as a "gotcha," then at least get it right. Go read a book and think critically for the first fucking time in your life.