It makes perfect sense. In a democracy your government (supposedly) represents you, thus the actions of your government are those you are partly morally responsible for and partly have some control over. If Russia or China is selling AK47s to warlords in Sudan, there's not much that westerners can do about it
> thus the actions of your government are those you are partly morally responsible for and partly have some control over
America has global force projection power. It has about as much influence in Gaza as it does in e.g. Venezuela or even, arguably, Iran.
Everyone has good reasons for why their pet war is the most central to our interests. I think it’s fair to accept that there are multiple good answers.
This is supposing that people only have an obligation to not cause harm, and that those who are able have no moral obligation to actively help protect those who need and deserve it. Kind of like the trolley problem, I suppose.
Not to mention "seriously", "really", "truly", "very", "verily", etc. There's a long history of using words related to truth as intensifiers in English.
Don't underestimate the power of big media corporations to push a world view. When I was a kid in NZ, British culture was impressed on us via the media. These days, there's more American influence. I don't think that's to do with the inherent quality of those cultures.
Of course not. But I think the US is unique in having it's shows be syndicated to such an extent globally, that isn't true for most other countries even English speaking ones. I assume that feeds back to them having that in mind and trying to please the lowest common denominator.
Stone scoring is equivalent to area scoring (as used in Chinese rules) modulo a "group tax" of two points per separate group.
It's still not a good idea to play inside your own territory as long as there are neutral points on the board. (Except in more complicated situations where it might be necessary.)
There are different rules on scoring, Chinese rules don't care about stones in your territory. Japanese rules do.
From what the page says, this uses the traditional japanese rules (Stone Scoring)
Human beings have this strange desire to be fed, have shelter and other such mundane stuff, all of those clearly less important than software in the big scheme of things, of course.
Many open source are not core business but supporting layers of overall organisations getting free PRs. Others are pet projects that tried to do too many things and overextended themselves for little additional value failing any sort of sustainability logic. Others had a larger range of features required than the original dev was aware of.
The beauty of open source is that there are all kinds of reasons for contributing to it, and all are valid. For some, it's just a hobby. For others, like Valve, it's a means of building their own platform. Hardware manufacturers like AMD (and increasingly Nvidia) contribute drivers to the kernel because they want to sell hardware.
God forbid a passion project stay just a passion project. You don't see this monetization perspective in the hobbyist 3D printing community or airbrushing communities. This is directly a result of how much OSS is framed as a "time sink" instead of enjoyable hobby. I don't like this narrative, and don't think its healthy.
No it is not. The DEA has been doing that since at least the 2nd Bush admin and probably would've been under Clinton or Bush 1 had the tech existed at the time.
reply