How have I known about Varoufakis for years as a serious political economist and speaker-on-the-topic, and never heard he was a Valve employee with a catalogue of 'gaming-economics' blogs in the early 2010s? LMFAO what a world
That article is literally just reporting what the president did. How does that mean they're "pro-gun control?" Do you not even read the articles and just seethe and shit yourself about what you think about the wording of headlines? You are such a raging rightist ideologue you have been blinded to all reality and don't even understand the things that you are mad at. Is this satire? Are you a real person who engages in media and politics like this or have I been trolled?
If you're serious, the US must have gasoline in the water or something (but ah that would be COMMUNIST to regulate that; or even report on it!)
exactly my thought
people consumed all these dystopian movies and thought "what a great rubric for society!" we're so fucked lol. These death machines (like drones and such) are also where the most work and funding go for machine learning and AI research too. What could go wroooong
well except all the Nazis in Germany that were brought directly back into:
but other than all of that though!
(And that's not even mentioning the Nazis and collaborators which made up the origins of Radio Free Europe/Liberty, the "Victims of Communism Foundation" which grew out of the fascist-filled anti-Soviet "Captive Nations Lobby" headed by OUN-B Nazis from Ukraine, and all the Operation Aerodynamic, Operation Paperclip, Operation Sunrise, Operation Beladonna, Operation Lynx, etc etc.)
Shitty billionaire
ah but you repeat yourself
Sees the USA doing what it's always done, which we've known since COINTELPRO and Snowden's whistleblowing
"THIS IS LIKE CHINA!!!"
to this day I still occasionally mutter "it never ends, this shit..."
honorable mention to New Marijuana Study Confirms Everyone Knows You're High And You Will Be Stoned Forever
because when this was originally uploaded on their website it would play a slightly different version every time you opened the page. So you'd laugh and show your friends, so then even if your (allegedly) stoner ass hadn't gotten tripped out the first time, while they're watching it and laughing you'd start sweating.
Second honorable mention to "Is The Government Spying on Schizophrenics Enough?" But I'm honestly still not sure that one's totally okay, even if I still laugh every single time I watch it. I'm not that type of mentally ill but have had people close to me who struggle enough with it and the very nature of the disorder is such that even though I laugh I've always at the same time felt it treads very much on the line.
Prague's Kafka International Named Most Alienating Airport
And a 'from-16-years-back' broadside at the US approaching November:
As far as I know it's because both sides had pretty banal low-level and straightforward stated goals that were all "met" so there wasn't a clear "winner" and a "loser" in those strategic goals. It was really more of a 3 week skirmish than a full war. Vietnam obviously wanted to force China out of their country, and China said they wanted to bat Vietnam on the nose and force them to pull out of and not occupy Cambodia, or Laos or Thailand.
Which China left meaning Vietnamese succeeded in their strategic goals, and the Vietnamese diverted major resources and pulled out of Cambodia and didn't occupy Thailand and Laos meaning the Chinese succeeded. There weren't really any major strategic goals that were stated by either side that showed blatant failure; like China never said they intended to fully occupy Hanoi and create a Chinese puppet state and failed. Vietnam as far as I know never said they intended to continue occupying Cambodia or occupy Thailand and then failed to. So in a way they both got what they wanted and it was a status quo antebellum situation. Thus indecisive in the context of if it weren't 'indecisive' there would have been a winner or loser.
Thailand and Laos were under multi-factional civil wars whose royal governments were also US proxies; so the Vietnamese were also involved there (and involved with their local communist parties), prompting Sino-Soviet-split-related concerns with China since even though both China and USSR provided support to Vietnamese communists; the USSR became the dominant supporter and ally of Vietnam and continued to be. China also had an alliance with Cambodia dating before Khmer Rouge even; which was in part because Cambodia wanted assurance against the larger Vietnam and Thailand. The split in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era between the ultra-lefts and others had half of the CPC supporting the Prince and half of it supporting the Khmer Rouge against the prince. North Vietnam and Khmer Rouge provided support for each other for a while too. The politics were a mess. No idea what other involvements China had with Thailand and Laos other than Sino-Soviet fears.
People overstate the significance of Chinese casualties as meaning a loss when that's not how war works. Strategic objectives are all that matter. The losses (if you average the wildly disproportionate claims from all sides; impossible to actually know when you look at it) were more even than something like The Winter War between USSR-Finland; and though that war had the Soviets suffer disproportionate losses, it was still a complete strategic victory for the Soviets; they got everything they were after which had refused by Finland in previous requested land-swaps, namely gaining the Karelia buffer region.