My response didn't say any country was better or worse than any other country, just that China had an imperialist past.

The strange whataboutism you're doing and trying to "debate" things that only you have brought up isn't a compelling form of argumentation. Stating that I was defending and spewing "apologist nonsense" about the US, when I hadn't mentioned the US at all is just really odd. I can't tell if you're really young and haven't learned about how to argue points and/or you're from China and simply can't handle anything negative said about your homeland?

Ok? They were still an imperial power. Having a stable border for a little while doesn't affect that definition.

> The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The countries acquiring them are doing so because they are best strike fighters on the planet, and it's not even close. Unless you know something that Norway, Japan, England, the Netherlands, etc don't know?

Also.. this little event where they added something like 10% of the current size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tib...

But I'm sure that wasn't imperialism because they had already conquered Tibet previously... in an act of imperial expansion.

Why would Japan mass produce an inferior product when they would easily be able to design and build a far superior one? "Shahed" isn't just another word for drone, it's a specific company's name.

> aggressive labeling of the opponent being opposed to money

What? Where, exactly, did I do that? I stated they were opposed to _spending money_ on a service that they would find useful.

> Any company on earth

Their definition of a "security company" would include almost any type of company on earth, as long as they took security seriously. I asked them for a definition of a security company, since they claimed that CrowdSec wasn't one, and their definition had no boundaries.

Improve your reading comprehension and maybe study some actual logic, not whatever reddit nonsense you've got going here. But other than that, A+ work dude. I'm sure you were really impressed with what you wrote. "Shall we dig in?" ... ffs.

You are the one who stated a specific company wasn't a security company. When asked to define what one was, your definition included any company on the planet.

> Also lets not belittle the hard work by just labelling it out as free

Who is belittling it? My point is that it's hard work and should be rewarded, not expected by someone to be done for them.

> The thing that works in their favor is that no one else can verify it either which absolves them from any responsibility

That's not how this works, at all. You need to have enough evidence that you can confidently demonstrate that there is no sign of a broader breach. If you get sued and can't do that, you're in trouble, because being unable to do that shows that you were acting negligently.

> Any company where understanding of security practices has a direct impact on its revenue from early phases can be considered as a security company in my view.

This could, quite literally, be any company on earth then? But not CrowdSec, because they had a single security issue? Every company on earth has had those, including every security company.

Also, the idea that this type of thing could just be stood up as a "not-for-profit" company and ran for peanuts is kind of silly. How would the nominal fee pay for the engineers and infrastructure? Or would this just be a volunteer effort and you'd like people to do this for free for you?

> In one case, during the development of an A.I. model called GPT-5.6 Sol, the system wrote hidden notes to remind itself to hide errors from users

It's odd for sure, but it's literally while the model was in development.

They said that... where?

In 2024, if the Dems just had a normal primary they would have won. But they consistently lied to people about what they were seeing with their own eyes (Biden's obvious lack of mental acuity), which people find really insulting, and then forced in a weak candidate.

To clarify, since this is the Internet and people make lots of assumptions: I voted against Trump three times, plus I voted against him in my state's open GOP primary, which he lost.