You're the first person I've ever heard saying this. People used to complain a lot about Android fragmentation, but J2ME was easily 50x worse. Maybe 100x.
For example: Keeping a record of the user getting a ban. Keeping the data that led to the ban. Keeping the user data in case the ban needs to be repelled.
I believe the OP's point is that almost every new technology is greeted with accusations of being worse than what came before and what it's assumed it will replace, whether or not that actually proves to be the case. The examples may seem facetious, but they're all real.
I do think a case could be made that the changes in communication driven by the internet actually are different, but it's not the change itself, per se, as much as the speed of change. Pre-internet these changes were generational, and they generally took a generation (or more!) to be fully adopted and integrated into society. Now they're coming every decade or less, sweeping through the world in a matter of years.
My point is, I don't think people really said that about telephone and telegraph. Not every new technology was taken as being worse, so dismissing problems of Twitter just because it's new and "people hated everything new" isn't really good.
These people would rather be dead than under Russian rule. Why would 97% of them support continuing defense if not?
And don't forget that when Russians still thought they're going to win, they brought in mobile crematoriums and started filtrating people and sending them off to Siberia if not torturing and murdering them. It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "war, possibly survive"
> These people would rather be dead than under Russian rule. Why would 97% of them support continuing defense if not?
Certainly this is not true of Crimea, where people have been independently polled by Western NGOs and the weight of the evidence is they want to be part of Russia.
> It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "war, possibly survive"
Your thesis is that if Russia won they would murder a substantial %-ge of the population in mobile crematoriums?
> Certainly this is not true of Crimea, where people have been independently polled by Western NGOs and the weight of the evidence is they want to be part of Russia.
You mean "a very slightly bigger half of them", right? And that was before all this shit went down and Russians started to mobilize them. I wonder how they feel now, don't you?
> Your thesis is that if Russia won they would murder a substantial %-ge of the population in mobile crematoriums?
Nah, my thesis is that Russia started with it immediately.
Seems like we just don't know much about what they did there, yet. Let's see how many mass graves are there once Ukraine gets the land back. Are you going to put your money on it being 0? Or maybe they simply planned the genocide for later, you never know with these crazy dictators.
I mean, murdering and cremating isn’t the only bit of genocide. They’ve also bern taking Ukrainian children and adopting them out to Russian families, and filtrating out Ukrainian adults across Russia.
At the beginning and through most of the invasion they Russian stance was that Ukrainians are a fake people and don’t actually exist. If I was getting invaded by a group saying my people weren’t real I probably wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt that they’d treat me well or let me live if I laid down Armstrong
It looks like the thread got stuck on a technicality around the cremations. I think I still agree with the initial, wider hypothesis the poster had with
> It was never a question of "no war and survive" VS "die in war" - but "no war, die anyways" VS "war, possibly survive"
Especially if, like most groups of humans as were tribal, the dissolution of your tribe is almost equivalent to not surviving
> I view this as dehumanizing. I would rather live and not be an American than die while being an American. I suspect most people are the same.
Humans are tribal on average. I also suspect that there are >zero groups of which you are a member, that you wouldn’t be willing to make sacrifices for.
It may be the case that you personally are an outlier, but it doesn’t change the group dynamics and we are discussing aggregate group behavior and their in this thread, not specific individuals
It seems very funny until you get investigated and fired for reporting made-up hours. I've seen it used as universal "we need to fire you ASAP" tool, since as you say everybody does it.
I live in a major EU city and even though they really try hard to make driving unbearable, it's still the best option in many cases. And you don't have any other option if you're going to a less major town nearby - even with worlds' best public transport infrastructure, it's still not good enough. Makes me very sceptical about mass transit.
I'm not asking whether it's worth it for the money. OP said "for a job with reasonable hours, hft pays a lot". That suggests they think 10 hours a day is reasonable, independently of the salary.
I don't think it suggests anything other than 10 hours being reasonable when you're paid $400k. Why would it be a separate thing? Everything hinges on the money. It's not reasonable to work 10 hours a day for $40k, but that's very much not the case for $400k.
