Thank God all other non-Russian companies not only condemn various atrocities around the globe but even support the affected countries being liberated by developing the high-tech armies of the good guys, right?!
The fact that all of the above is being presented as an exclusively Russian strategy. When almost all companies mentioned on this website are proudly and directly tied to non-Russian war industries. The tendency to omit pointing out non-Russian examples almost always indicates endorsement of their actions.
And let me beat you to this that I condemn all offensive war industries no matter the country of origin. Unlike those who believe it is ok to side with one and not the other even if they do the exact same.
If you interact with American businesses, use American technology or pay taxes to any Western government, you're indirectly funding genocide, slavery, wanton environmental destruction and countless other crimes by the US, its allies and corporations.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, none of our hands are clean. We all deal with our complicity in various ways, and draw our lines in the sand where we will, but at the end of the day survival in this world forces us all to be hypocrites.
This is quite a stretch of mental gymnastics from the initial point, drawing a blatantly false equivalency between the consumer and the producer as an at attempt to derail and minimize the latter's direct contribution to the forced unethical consumption. And it's an especially absurd argument since it's impossible to ethically consume or even survive with such owners of the means of production.
And this whole falsely applied narrative is unironically a very frequent laundering tactic of their proponents.
And btw I don't even think most are really willing to accept the accusations of the American companies, as they've been told for centuries that these are the good guys.
You've done the thing where you've basically restated my argument and implicitly agreed with it but for some reason also framed your comment as strident disagreement and accused me of motives I don't have. Like many people here, your emotions seem to have poisoned your intellect. I assume you just skimmed my comment and got triggered?
I'm not drawing an equivalency between consumer and producer, I'm pointing out a relationship which, while unequal, still exists and needs to be acknowledged. I'm not attempting to derail or minimize anything. You claim you "condemn all offensive war industries no matter the country of origin," and that's fine, but in any practical sense it's meaningless moral posturing. Unless you run off into the woods to live off the grid, you're still a part of the problem, it's unavoidable.
Yes, it's entirely possible to disagree with the misinterpretation of an otherwise as-objectively-as-possible true sentence.
It seems like you're holding onto your initial position, applying the factually true statement:
no ethical (as in a way of not contributing to others' exploitation) consumption is currently possible
in an twisted manner. Which is also evident from the very last sentence, where you're suggesting only a form of ascetic lifestyle is able to absolve somebody, however one would realize such thing is both impractical and still impossible to do so under the current economic-political landscape. Not to mention that all this suggests that you, maybe unwittingly but still, tie civilization advancement possibility to the existence of an exploitative societal structure.
Instead of talking about the way it's currently shaped to be ran by those who are profit-driven, violently steal resources and contribute to exhaustion of all peoples around the world, you're simplistically reducing it to a matter of entire groups of people, ignoring their standing in the social strata, having to either choose primitivism or accept they're just as bad as their rulers. Even if you've disclaimed that you're not concealing any motives and the responsibility is unequally distributed, your adherence on shifting away from those in charge of the means of production, which is how you've chosen to initiate this very exchange, enables an interpretation of you implicitly defending them, and I believe that's also what anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability would make of. I would be less critical if you at least suggested organization against the existing way the global socioeconomical system as an alternative, but the appeal to the adherence to an archaic lifestyle suggests this is not something you'd probably approve of. A positive surprise would be taking this for granted and you just condemning those willing to comply all along I suppose?
And throughout the entire history, it has been shown that these are the exact same accusations that have insidiously been made by whoever is directly behind exploitative administrations. They put the blame on those who are always barred from having any say/questioning the way their labor is being used, divide them, deject their protests and prevent overthrowing.
> You claim you "condemn all offensive war industries no matter the country of origin," and that's fine, but in any practical sense it's meaningless moral posturing. Unless you run off into the woods to live off the grid, you're still a part of the problem, it's unavoidable.
This whole narrative here really boils down to the Oh you like music? name every song meme.
P.S. I'd advise refraining from appealing to imaginary emotional reactions on behalf of the other party. It usually demonstrates inability to defend a particular view and deflects from meaningful dialogue.
Unfortunately, the popular graphical browsers AFAIK do not allow the user to disable CSS. Other news sites that use AMP, such as WSJ, use CSS as well as Javascript to annoy the user. Disabling Javascript is not enough. It is possible to remove the offensive CSS from a page through the browser's developer console, developer tools, etc. but at that point we may as well use a browser extension.
Here is a filter for WSJ.
sed -n '/<article/,/<\/article/{/./{/<h1/,/<\/h1>/p;};/<title>/,/<\/title>/p;/./{/<p>[^<]*/,/<\/p>/p;};}' a.htm
It has everything to do with the chosen font and how font-weight: 300 is displayed. The font-family is set to sans-serif and on my Linux system, it selects DejaVu Sans ExtraLight, which looks like that.
This is actually one reason to use webfonts, since you can be reasonably(ish) sure it looks more or less the same for everyone.
> This is actually one reason to use webfonts, since you can be reasonably(ish) sure it looks more or less the same for everyone.
This seems to be a general conflict between "it should look like the person who made it intended it" and "it should look like I want it to". For instance prescribing fonts and colors gives you a nice uniform look, but causes problems with dark themes or wanting other fonts, not to mention hijacking scrolling for fancy effects.
Similarly, clientside decorations make apps like chrome look similar on all OSs, but also out of place on all of them.
If you're writing a blog post, IMO you shouldn't care about how the site looks, other than it being easy to read. The best way to make it easy to read is black text on a white background and no clutter (the latter, to be fair, is something this site does well).
While AWS supports DNSSEC for domain registration they don't support it for DNS. While it does appear that most of these attacks would not have been prevented by DNSSEC isn't it about time AWS supported DNSSEC ?
Can someone help me out on the missing pieces here, whats the average construction cost of a regular home in the US ? In Australia a single storey 180m2 home which is just under 2000 ft2 would run for approximately $200k AUD. That works out to be $1100 per square meter or a little over $100 AUD or $80 USD per square foot. The article is stating around $300 USD per square foot, this seems astronomically expensive.
Our build was around $355'000, for 279m2 but it was high set. We did opt for some premium finishes not found on most homes built these days, we have 2.7m high ceilings, ducted ac, ducted vac, square set cornices, stone bench tops through out, floor to ceiling tiles in the bathrooms and wc, we also have european appliances, built in coffee machine, steam oven etc.
Based on what we spent yeah ours would have been around $230k if we had built 180m2, but you have to factor in the fact we did go double storey.
I was astonished as the ease of building houses in Perth when I visited recently.
Since its all sand, digging and compacting your foundations is ridiculously easy, and typically getting out of the ground is the riskiest part of building a new home.
Then pick a off the shelf house design which is simple brick and tile, so there's no gotchas during construction.
Land in Australian capital cites is expensive, but home construction costs are not. We built 307m2 with a decent builder in Perth for AUD$250k a few years ago, if anything construction prices have softened since then.
