I am not joking.
You might not be joking but you are assuming. Do you have a link to a statement by a site admin that says explicitly that is what it stands for? Otherwise you’re just speculating, and there are other reasons someone would have chosen .ml besides it standing for that.
You’re not just looking for conversation.
Unless you get a response from the site admins, anyone’s answer is pure speculation. No one is going to be able to say, definitively, why .ml was chosen, except the site admins.
My theory is: .ml domains used to be offered for free. So they made lemmy.ml for free, as it was just a toy project. Then, they upgraded to the paid .ml domain (which is how they managed to avoid the recent free .ml purge).
The “its Marxism-Leninism” could be true, but unless you get an answer from a site admin, everyone asserting that it’s true is talking out of their ass. They don’t know any more than you or I know.
DRM exists to "protect’ the software developer, i.e. protect profits by making sure every copy has been paid for and to force people to buy multiple copies in certain cases. DRM never has and never will be for your (the consumer’s) benefit.
horseshoe crabs are always referred to with the word horseshoe in front
They weren’t in this case, so that “always” seems to be a stretch.
if one cares about communication.
It’s made clear in the article. If one cares about communication they’re reading past a headline.
Horseshoe “blood” is blue, and it’s not actually blood it’s hemolymph. It is blue crab blood. Blue blood from a crab.
Who has spent the most on this conflict? Hint: it’s not Russia; it’s not even Ukraine; nor is it any European country or…any other country. The USA has spent more on this conflict than any other country, including Russia. Who platformed Nazis, embedded them into the military complex, and helped put them in positions of power within NATO? You guessed it, the USA. Do you think the USA is some independent third party observer here?
Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.
I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I’m having. You’re doing a lot to make sure it’s obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I’m mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you’re asserting that socialism can’t lead to imperialism. You’ve still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.
And I agree that, by definition, it’s a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I’m not justifying imperialism at all, but it’s a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you’re trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You’re saying socialism can’t engage in imperialism by definition but the most I’d give is that it doesn’t engage in imperialism in practice.
I don’t see how that follows.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
There is definitely no other way.
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.
You didn’t answer what I asked.
You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.
A more accurate title and thesis would be “How the West’s historical amnesia took everyone for a ride”.
The West has made a very concerted effort to ignore the historical and geopolitical context (and misrepresent it where it must mention it) surrounding the situation. The conflict did not begin in 2022 by Russia. The only way the West has managed to gain and hold support has been by deceptively misrepresenting the reality of the situation in order to rally everyone around a perceived Evil. They don’t bother describing what the people in the actual territories that asked for Russian support want. They don’t bother describing how Ukraine has bombed its own people. They don’t bother to describe how, partially due to Ukraine’s abuses, several regions voted to join Russia. They don’t bother to describe how Russia was invited by those fighting for their homes and families against Ukraine. They don’t comment on how millions of Ukrainians have chosen to immigrate to Russia since Ukraine bombed its citizens in 2014. They don’t dig in to why the majority of the global population supports Russia here.
This is not Russian imperialism or colonialism. This is not Russian aggression. The attempt to describe it that way is dishonest and, unfortunately, most people don’t care enough to actually inform themselves so this portrayal catches on rather easily.
The Western media has taken advantage of the fact that very few people are informed about historical context, and that most people don’t care about context. The Western media has taken advantage of the fact that people like to be united against a Big Evil, in a fully black-and-white way, devoid of any context and nuance.
China is a socialist state so by definition cannot be
Can you elaborate on that? I agree that China is not imperialist, but I don’t see how socialism by definition precludes that possibility.
If you truly think this is a display of Russian aggression I genuinely doubt that you have any historic view on the geopolitics of the region. The conflict did not appear out of thin air in 2022. The situation is more complex than “Russian aggression”; in fact that’s not even a part of the picture. Russia is responding to requests for assistance after Ukraine began bombing its own people in 2014. Many of these people voted to join Russia after this disgusting display by Ukraine. Before 2022 most of the combatants against Ukraine were regular people fighting for their homes and families. These people realize that Ukraine wants to bomb their homes and Russia is offering to fight alongside them. On the weekend before the SMO began, there were 2000 ceasefire violations in the Donbass. Between 2014 and 2022, 1 million Ukrainians immigrated to Russia because of the abuse by the Ukrainian government. And since the operation began in 2022, another 1.3 million immigrated. The people in these territories that Ukraine has zero regard for view the support they are receiving from Russia positively: they invited Russia in to assist them, and they are somewhat reliant on Russia to protect them from Ukraine.
I know life is a lot easier when you don’t muddy things with context. I know that it’s a lot easier to be righteous in your condemnation of a world power because they’re “evil” and an “aggressor” than it is to acknowledge that the situation is more complex. I know that it’s a lot easier to go along with what Western media says than to be informed and hold your own opinions. I know it feels nice to rally with everyone against a perceived enemy. I know it feels nice to feel that your country (and military) is finally doing something good for once. But you can’t let wanting to feel good stand in the way of reality. The Western media has done a hell of a job propagandizing this war, attempting to remove any historical and geopolitical context, in order to gather and maintain support. Think honestly: how much historical and geopolitical context have you seen, especially from popular media sources? How much more effort is spent on raging about current “evil deeds” than understanding the desires of the people in the actual territories that have asked Russia for help?
Please read, and inform yourself. Life is less black-and-white than “Russia evil”.
So what’s the conclusion as to what’s happening?
As I wrote about in a thread a couple weeks back (here, here, and here), this should have been fine, and was fine on paper.
According to official statements it was going to be diluted, before release, to a level that was even lower than what Fukushima NPP put out while operational. Then it was going to be released at a rate that maintained this concentration.
Did Japan lie? Did it not dilute how it said it would? Was it a technical failure and dilution did not occur at the level they said it would, or was it released too fast at the dilution level they set? Was there not testing at release time/site?
Olga is glad that Russia has intervened in the conflict, and she indeed corrected me when I once referred to the Russian SMO as an “invasion”, telling me that Russia did not invade. Rather, they were invited and welcomed in. That does seem to be the prevailing view in Donetsk as far as I can tell.
The OP put a non-paywalled link in the post body.
It is disturbing how righteous you feel in your ignorance.
If France does that we will beat their ass.
I wish I could say this response is surprising, but it’s really not. When you can’t win by diplomacy, reasoning, and discussion, and when you feel that you have the right to punish other countries for being sovereign, you resort to force and “beat their ass”.
Do you believe France is sovereign, can make their own decisions, and can act in their own best interest, and are fully competent and able to do so? Or do you not believe they have the right to be sovereign and you (whoever “we” is) have the right to force them to align with your interests? If they end up in any agreement with China, it was their own decision and they did so because it benefits them in some way; do you feel you are permitted to punish them for that?
It seems you’re right. I will edit that part of my comment. But I will point out: I wasn’t making a statement that one was worse than the other. I made the point that they’re similar in ranking and like I said, even if you reverse ranking order they’re still just as similar. And, since they were middling in their ranking like I originally said, if you invert the sorting, they’re still middling.
.iois a ccTLD though and is subject to the whims of the British Indian Ocean Territory. They can, for any reason, remove domains. See what recently happened with Mali and.ml.