No, what the hell, don't buy a gun for that reason. That will only escalate the violence. And there's only so far that you can escalate as a civilian until they roll out the tanks, and your guns can't do shit against tanks.
You need power in numbers. That's how you can build a proper resistance.
Yeah, that's like... 250 billion tons of rice. That's over 30 tons of rice per person in this world. Not sure this much rice even exists on this planet.
Das ist halt so die Frage. Man braucht bei solchen Umfragen in aller Regel eine Möglichkeit auszuschließen, dass man mehr als einmal teilnimmt, ansonsten kann man die Umfrage viel zu leicht manipulieren.
Ist halt die Frage: wie geht die Firma damit um? Heißt es, "die Umfrage ist anonym, vertraut uns"? Oder heißt es, "die und die und die Schritte haben wir gemacht um eure Anonymität nachweislich sicherzustellen, und außerdem haben wir das Ganze in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Betriebsrat gemacht, sodass sie keine Einwände haben". Das macht ein sehr großer Unterschied.
I've just read the letter. Please, let's not spread misinformation, things are bad enough as is.
The letter demanded the voter database, among a couple of other sensitive databases. It never said ICE would leave if they comply. It only promised that peace would return to the streets, whatever the hell that means. I highly doubt they mean withdrawing ICE, especially considering they keep painting them as completely peaceful, and considering they demand a shit ton of cooperation in that letter as well, essentially letting ICE in everywhere. So in fact, it's almost the opposite - they demanded that and also demanded more access for ICE.
To be completely fair, there is still a bit of a chance of having midterms, the likelihood that the Chinese government will be voted out in a year is next to zero.
Also, he exposed China's rights abuses, so he automatically has a target on his back there, which he doesn't have (at least to that extent) in the US. So even approaching a situation where both countries are approximately equally dangerous or even worse, the US becoming more dangerous than China, he would still be safer in the US since he exposed China's rights abuses, not the US's.
OK but in all honesty what is he supposed to? The regime doesn't give a shit what's allowed and what's not. At this point the best thing he can do is rally the people to get out onto the streets as much as possible. He has power at the state level (which they don't give a fuck about), not at the federal level.
Interesting, but I wonder how accurate that is, taking myself as an example. I know that I don't have a drinking problem (as in, I don't feel a need to drink alcohol and sometimes go weeks or months at a time without alcohol simply because the opportunity doesn't present itself, and can control and have controlled my alcohol intake when necessary without any issues), but points 2 and 3 have definitely applied to me, and 1 possibly as well. The problem wasn't my drinking, but that an abusive person needed something to criticize and degrade me, and that was a perfect opportunity. If I had stopped drinking that person would have found something else (and they did when I drank less due to covid).
I think that's really the problem, the Democrats are actually multiple parties forced under a trenchcoat due to the electoral system. Unfortunately, the center (-right if you compare to other countries) is the wing that is in control at the moment, and that seriously has to change. Obama was more from the center-left wing of the party (yes, I know, that changed later on), and look how well he won. Yes, a lot of his policies got watered down, and he wasn't without his faults, but it was still a move in the right direction, I'll take the healthcare plan he got passed before the clusterfuck that was before it any day.
If you had a proper electoral system you wouldn't have the Democrats as such but instead at least two parties that cover the ground Democrats cover today.
So yes, condemn the Democrats that aren't doing shit. But don't forget to give credit to the Democrats that are giving proper resistance.
Don't underestimate what a couple percent can do to the economy. On surface level, it might seem to be a small amount in comparison to the total, but if it makes it just a bit harder for the US to borrow money, it can trigger a domino effect. The countries and investors that are still interested in buying their debt could easily realize that if they hold back as well, they can demand higher interest rates. Economies have crashed over less.
Have you written anything? Have you composed or recorded a song? Have you drawn or painted a picture? Taken an artistic photo? Even written some source code?
Yes I have, yes I have, yes I have, yes I have, and yes I have.
And yes, I'm thinking about this from the point of view of a creator. It's fucking difficult to make ends meet. Talk to any artist that hasn't managed to get a salaried job as an artist (you have to be really, I mean really good at what you do) or gotten lucky enough to make it big. They're saving money anywhere they can. They're working second and third jobs. Honestly, on average, artists are the poorest people I know. Despite copyright protection being strong (put the AI thing aside for a minute, since it's a fairly new problem). The lab results are in. It doesn't work.
You know what they would like? To focus on their art, and not their financial issues. Oh, and many would like to not worry about the legal grey area/hellhole when it comes to remixing or rearranging others' work. I've made an arrangement for a song I was fascinated with, but I haven't released it, partly because I don't want to deal with all the legal BS.
This was meant to be a real solution to a real problem at the dawn of industrialization; how can the person who writes a story compete with a person who owns a printing press?
You're mixing up your history here. Copyright is much, much newer than the printing press. And even if you take that assumption, that calculation has changed, since again there's next to no cost to making copies anymore. So now, the companies have used copyright to become gatekeepers while also keeping as much of the profit as humanly possible.
Why is the prescription a society where creative people are the only ones who can't capitalize on their creations?
...except they can. There are plenty of media creators that get their audience to sponsor them, to varying degrees of success.
But honestly, if there's no worry about food insecurity or housing insecurity, do you want to create art or just profit from it?
I'm not going to go into the slippery slope tirade at the end except to say this: look at how filthy rich companies like Disney, Sony, etc. are. They are that ridiculously rich because of copyright. Is that really what you want?
That, and it only solves one of the problems copyright causes. The problems in regards to using content to create more content is still there. The problems with massive companies raking in millions while giving the creator pennis is still there. The problems with access to content. All the spinoff issues with DRM are still there. To give a couple of examples.
No, what the hell, don't buy a gun for that reason. That will only escalate the violence. And there's only so far that you can escalate as a civilian until they roll out the tanks, and your guns can't do shit against tanks.
You need power in numbers. That's how you can build a proper resistance.