> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.
Out of curiosity, How can your argument "be supported and shown to be objectively correct" ?
It seems the evidence is actually the other way around. After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.
I do not support the death penalty myself, but primarily for ethical and moral reasons to preserve our humanity - which is constantly under attack. But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.
> After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.
If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?
> But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.
I disagree. When you evaluate all the pros and cons, I think the evidence is solidly against the death penalty.
> If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?
Of-course it wouldn't - but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts". Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.
> but you are precisely reinforcing my point. Because opponents can claim via evidence that the death penalty is effective for this, if you argue on the basis of "facts".
I don't believe I am. The death penalty being effective at reducing a crime isn't itself a sufficient justification of the death penalty.
> Thus, objectivity should not be used as an argument for an ethical and moral human principle. Such principles stand by themselves to maintain the sanctity of the human soul - no justification needed.
We do have objective arguments though; ultimately everything can be quantified by the amount of harm or good it does.
They are less accessible in the future. Apps on the macOS App Store (as well as iOS, iPadOS, etc.) are taken down / removed from availability if the developer stops paying the Apple Developer Program subscription.
Also there is no "compiler" and "type checker" for your SPEC. If you get something wrong in some paragraph somewhere and or contradict something in your spec X paragraphs later - you have to use Mark-1 EyeBall to detect and fix this.
You have just transformed your job from developer to manual spec maintainer - a clerk who has to painstakingly check everything.
But the current crisis is most certainly due to the United States - double confirmed by the U.S. administration. The U.S. President and his Secretary of State have BOTH boasted about stopping oil delivery to Cuba and tightening the screws on them. They want easy regime change.
"THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE." The Cuban government is "ready to fall" or "failing pretty soon" due to this cutoff!
Rubio has in slightly less pompous fashion confirmed that the U.S. has now successfully weakened Cuba.
Personally, I despise the current U.S. administration's glee at causing suffering. "Might Makes Absolute Right" & "Vae Victis" are the current American mottos. No old-fashioned velvet glove over the steel fist - it is barbed with titanium and doused with hellfire now.
If Cuba's government had created prosperity when they had the chance then they wouldn't be experiencing this crisis right now. They had a decade plus of no economic blockade from the U.S., and still they squandered the opportunity. They had 6+ decades of subsidies from their friends (minus a brief period following the fall of the USSR), and still they squandered that. This is because Cuba's government does not want prosperity for its citizens (subjects) for whatever reason (probably because they would be harder to keep down), and instead preferred to live off the largesse of the USSR (later Russia), Venezuela, and Mexico.
> They had a decade plus of no economic blockade from the U.S., and still they squandered the opportunity.
Err when was this decade plus of zero economic blockade ? I think you have confused less than two tiny years from 2015-2017. Nothing can be done in 2 years. By the time you setup trade, you are blockaded by the big bully who wants to make you suffer pain and you can do nothing. There is also a big bully base at home to ensure complete compliance to pain.
Blaming a victim for being abused is a really terrific argument.
Canadians have famously enjoyed tourism in Cuba for decades. I've purchased Cuban cigars in Europe. European and Canadian divers have gushed to me about their amazing dive sites.
I'm not going to say US trade policy hasn't hurt Cuba. But it's not like they're totally economically cut off from the world. They ought to be doing much better than they are.
Cuba's problems emanate from Havana, not Washington D.C.
Irrelevant distinction presently. Kindly do your research and study what is absolutely enforced via both law and unofficial pressure on third parties. Some mere cigars available in Europe and some tourists don't change the essentials.
"Cuba's problems emanate from Havana, not Washington D.C."
Only said so arrogantly by a citizen of a nation who has never suffered from economic suppression. Like slavery, you will need to experience the chains yourself, before you understand the pain and suffering. I am frankly just disgusted at citizens of the West who support such suppression through threats and force and then blame the native government. Your own nations would have experienced severe pain if forced to the same situation, but it must be great to issue declamations from your holier-than-thou throne.
And from which perfect utopia held back only by the evil West do you hail?
Given your apparent desire to put us in chains to experience pain and suffering, perhaps that's the next place we ought to suppress through threats and force.
It must be great to issue declamations from your holier-than-thou victimhood. It's much easier, too, as you never have to defend anything, because it's always someone else's fault.
PS: Food, medicine, and medical equipment--the essentials--are exempt from the embargo.
"holier than thou victimhood" ? What a horrible joke. My "utopia", as you term it, is merely asking that Western nations stop bombing, terrorizing and sanctioning other nations before issuing proclamations on "failed states". They would actually get a chance to be successful.
> PS: Food, medicine, and medical equipment--the essentials--are exempt from the embargo.
So deeply ignorant and deliberately blind to the real world. The U.S. significantly constrained Cuba’s ability to buy medical equipment from other countries, not just from the U.S. itself. Cuba cannot legally import any product containing more than "10% U.S. origin components". For some years, it was even 25%!
Even when a product was made in Germany, Japan, or Canada, U.S. parts could make it illegal to sell to Cuba.
2nd order threats and suppression are very effective for propaganda. Permits western supremacists like you to falsely claim that that "the essentials" are exempt.
"For example, the purchase of Vitek 2 Compact 15 laboratory equipment for one of the enterprises that manufactures the Cuban vaccine candidates was cancelled when Canadian supplier North World Industry Inc. (NWI) informed its Cuban customer that the company’s supplier, Biomeriux Canadá, had refused to supply the equipment and its consumables, because the components were manufactured in the US. NWI sought to procure the equipment from Spain, through Biomereux’s European subsidiary, and from Panama, through a Latin American subsidiary, to no avail."
There are a dozen other reports/articles that I can bring up. Most of this research, you could easily find out by yourself. You are just not willing to admit the basic truth to yourself and chosen to deliberately blind your eyes.
(PS: My origin is irrelevant to the evidence. I am not from any NATO nation, obviously not from Cuba myself, belong to a nation formerly under colonial rule and which also experienced Western harsh sanctions in the past.)
What is even the point in open sourcing code now unless it is being done specifically for the government or for a public standard? You don't get attribution, you don't get bugfixes, your human product used as a training set to make billionaires richer and permit a proliferation of LLM generated copies with README's filled with emojis and fake soundbites.
The Claude Fans here should not be overly surprised if the number of human-coded OSS projects falls off a cliff in the next couple of years. AI Companies might need to actually being paying humans for writing code to prevent model collapse.
So you can train AI on Disney Movies to generate and sell your own disney movies because "knowledge is extracted" from it ? Betcha that won't fly in the courts. Here is "Slim Cinderella" - trained and extracted from all Disney Cinderella movies!
Sure, you can do it illegally - by breaking the law and recognizing that you need to be a fugitive. You can give up civilization and live in the wilderness. People can do whatever they want on their 10 year old Dell as long as they don't sell/distribute products made from other people's true efforts.
Huh, viewing from India here - no paywall. BBC can be biased, but it is very useful to know what the British state media thinks. This article is neutral reporting with barely any "analyst opinion" flavor.
Just for clarity: the BBC is not "state media," it's a public broadcaster. This is an important distinction as the UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
The BBC will regularly criticise the government, especially when it's a Labour government.
> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
> The BBC will regularly criticise the government
The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”
The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.
When I say state media I mean media that exists as a part of the state. Like when it's funded by the state or the state has some other kind of influence over it.
Your definition conflicts with UNESCO’s definition. By your reasoning, private US media outlets would have qualify as “State Media” because they kowtow to the Trump government - “some other kind of influence”. This is patently nonsense, so your definition is incorrect.
UNESCO using a definition that doesn't account for fascist corporatism and other means vy which nominally private entities can serve as arms of the state doesn't make that definition universally correct, it just makes it UNESCO’s definition.
reply