and where is the difference than to a mad dog?

And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.

For me, statements like "antifacism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" is propaganda hidden in political slogans, not meaningful definitions. Their intention is to shield acts committed under those labels from being judged by the same standard as politcally less sympathetic violence.

Terrorism does not stop being terrorism because the people claim to fight capitalism, fascism, religion, imperialism or anything else?

Is Christianity terrorism? As a religion obviously not. But still horrific acts were done in the name of Christianity and the Islam. Just ask the witches...

So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist.

And far too often people downplay their violence and ruthlessness by using those labels as an excuse.

Well ... it speaks for their competence. It's like creating a Teams meeting about classified security issues on Windows 95 systems...

The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.

Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.

Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.

The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?

Never thinking about that this actual rude behaviour might come back at some point to yourself - and it was not a question of if but just of when.

Well, question answered.

"At the center of the proceedings is a Tagesschau report that was based on misleading assessments of the Correctiv report. It was falsely claimed that the expulsion of German citizens and the revocation of citizenship based on racist criteria had been discussed at the meeting in Potsdam. This was refuted by affidavits from the participants."

https://www.hoecker.eu/news/wer-auf-correctiv-setzt-zahlt-dr...

more details: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/correctiv-ca...

Moreover, one of these agencies is run by a left-wing comrade who is a qualified social education worker. However, the agency should actually be headed by a lawyer, as in the Thuringian law, which was simply reinterpreted in the case of Stephan J. Kramer.

So yeah, that's an trustworthy argument.

Actually it is recursive: Why should it be forbidden to create an artificial person which impersonates the actor impersonating the role in a movie or play?

It's not about Rust or C - it's about transparency. The existing maintainers assume that it is not a priority for them whether they break something downstream or not. They therefore work in a space with interfaces that they can change as they see fit, without giving any guarantees as to their continued existence or wanting to subordinate themselves to a defined change process.

Rust is just a symptom of growing pains. Growth would be achieved if they could agree on common rules which would foster independent development linked by the interface contracts.

Instead, the issue is that established maintainers have grown fond of their zoo and are only pursuing their own priorities in a landlord-like manner. On the other hand, they see new technologies appearing and disappearing on the horizon and have consequently realized that a new technology or language cannot improve an existing system.

And yet they are classically talking past each other.

The RKI was only used to sell these orders to the public by given their ideas a scientific face.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41054396

Points: 9

# Comments: 4

If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.

Yes, of course, ChatGPT & Co. are very unlikely to take any real care about what they give their models to learn - especially with regard to copyright.

For a better perspective, I always try to transfer the behavior to the analog world. In this sense, someone who, for example, illegally obtains a book on Linux (let's say via ebook) would not be ethically in the correct position to contribute to Gentoo, because the knowledge on which their contribution is based would be stolen intellectual property.

I can't imagine that there are any people in this world whose knowledge was obtained exclusively through copyright legal means. We are all in a gray area - one possibly more than the other.

In my view, it is typical of engineers to simply transfer philosophically complicated moral issues to technologies. But this method will never come close to solving anything, because the very complicated analog moral world cannot simply be mapped to 0 or 1.