The version that’s stuck in my head is Japanese so this is a translation.

Watch. See how they’ve lived their lives with pride, and with their lives they’ve sang the ode to civilization. This is the story of those whom people called heroes, the unfinished journey of the 13 who chased the flame. But traveller, your journey continues on, isn’t that right? Then, follow your heart and move on. Follow the footsteps and witness that flame chasing journey to the end. And finally… walk across the graves of those who have fallen. And for that future which “we” could not create… GO CREATE IT!

I can see it being a political calculus for the ICC to garner as much support as possible, and not just from their traditional supporters. The stigma that it’s merely a tool, using justice in selective ways to further Western interest, strongly dissuades many 3rd world countries from seeing it as a force of true justice. If the ICC truly seeks to have justice delivered, they cannot rely on just nations like Germany, France, or the UK for support, and they will be strongly crippled if, say, more than half the countries in the world no longer see it as legitimate. So this could be an attempt at sending a message to all nations of what it’s setting out to do, which is good, since even if, like you said, the masks fall off Western nations, there is an entity that can provide other nations with grounds to enact justice for themselves against these forces.

I know many will see this as a futile gesture but I’ll try to put out some reasonings that it’s may not be all that futile. The warrant may not do what it sets out to do, which is to put Netanyahu and Gallant in trial and prosecuted, but it will serve itself in other indirect ways.

It can be political ammunition in diplomatic talks. Nations in support of the Palestinians, many of which are small, can use this to gain some leverage against countries that give no shits about the ICC like the US, however little that is (though given we’re going to have Trump back in the WH, it’s basically pointless). It’s also useful as another ammo for them to back out of unfavorable deals, citing national opinion on the genocide in Gaza.

Of course, this potentially benefits the ICC as well, though it can certainly go very wrong. Western nations may very well rally behind Israel and pull support off the ICC, further crippling it. So this is hopefully a well-calculated move from the ICC after reading the tea leaves. It can benefit the ICC internationally as it has always been criticized to be pro-Western, and this may help to ease some of their reputation with non-Western nations.

In a world where cooperation and trust between nations is slowly crumbling, and I may just be trying to be optimistic here because hell knows if that cooperation was ever really a thing, this gesture, however overt, isn’t something we shouldn’t welcome.

One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.

Not all of us here are from the States buddy.

So I guess you could say

they couldn’t do it without [the] (sic) US

Having lots of loaned words don’t mean much when English and Japanese have vastly different grammatical structures. There are also lots of non-English loaned words in Japanese, and from experience, the Japanese don’t always know which language a word is borrowed from, nor should the speakers of the language really need to care. In any case, grammar makes up an important part of a language, though it doesn’t come for free if you aren’t already exposed to the grammatical structure before.

On the last point you talked about, “prove it definitely will become such a future”. You simply cannot prove that without going there. What we’re seeing is not a natural course of actions, so we cannot simply derive the consequences like we would be able in science. Even in science, often times, the best we can do is probabilistic. The best we can do is show that such a future is possible, and that given the evidences, we may be able to conclude that the chances of realizing such a future is so and so, with caveats to known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I’ll admit that chalking it up to defeatism is a stretch, but it’s not too far in my opinion. It’s the admission that the “machines” (though it’s really just big tech companies with a vested interest in as much data as possible so that they can sell it one way or another for profit) have already won and there’s not only no point in struggling against it, you get something out of it. I don’t necessarily agree with the gun analogy as I find it difficult to distinguish that from a threat of your life, but I see where you’re coming from: the easy path towards what most people current perceive as a modern life of tech is built in a way that pushes people into line as products, by enticing them with a “service” and taking advantage of their FOMO, and all other ways are either too much work or too technical for the common person.

When these services that people have come to rely on gets enshittified, these people would then just shrug and say “well what can you do,” maybe send some angry message somewhere into the aether and continue with the service, continuing to be a milk cow.

For myself, I see privacy as a tool towards encouraging a healthier variety in the ecosystem. It is a way to attain at least some healthy level of anonymity, as you would walking down streets in different parts of the world, so that I do not have to constantly maintain a single, outward personality everywhere I go. Supporting privacy is my way of saying I don’t like how many big tech business works, by essentially exploiting human nature and stepping all over it. That IS ideological; I simply believe that we can do good business without resorting to dirty tactics and opportunism; that humans should not be milk cows to business or capitalism.

That said, I have some vested interest in having more options: my interest and hobbies are niche and none of these services can or will sufficiently provide for what I seek. By the milk cow analogy, I do not sufficiently benefit from the blanket offers of these businesses. I also do not like the consequences of which they bring to humans and their relationships, and not fixing those consequences is out of a conflict of interest where they are motivated to exploit human nature and relationships to profiteer off us all, as is the many examples that we’re all starting to see and realize from capitalism.

Those three sound completely different to me, as far as how I’ve been pronouncing them goes. “Their” doesn’t have the extra lagging e sound (as in the e in err) in “there” where I curl my tongue upward at the end. “They’re” preserves the ey sound in “they”, just concatenated with an r as in err sound.

When I say, “They’re there,” people can make out what I’m saying, though as more people seem to tell me that these are just homophones, maybe they’ve just been relying on context.

True.

And they’ll follow that up with a somewhat snarky comment that “You’ll be eliminated by the machines first.”

There’s the “this is too woke” gang, and then there’s the “this doesn’t have enough representation” gang. You can’t win.

There’s worse.

They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.

I hate defeatism.

This seems like a real knee jerk moment here. You aren’t wrong that there are predatory sellers that do exactly that, but it also seems to assume that people do not have the ability to do their own research, which tbf in a society where attention is apparently a rare commodity and heavily capitalized on, it’s not necessarily an unfair assumption. It’s just unhelpful and honestly pretty damn rude to make a blanket comment that seems to assume that people just won’t or will refuse do their research, and should just listen to your authoritative take.

Wouldn’t it be better to just rephrase your comment into something like, “Please remember to keep an eye on price histories to make sure that the displayed prices are discounted as claimed.”?

Or does it feel better to speak as if people are dumber than you are? I mean, if you need to feel smarter and better, there are other healthier avenues for that, and I would suggest that you try looking into those instead.

“Hurdurr there was no war during Trump’s Presidency”

The return statement always returns for the function, regardless of scope within the function. So what you want is just Some(link) without the semicolon.

That said, I’m not quite sure if you’re using the for loop correctly here. Are you trying to get just one value out of link_nodes?

Big whoosh

They do, but it doesn’t make the US less responsible for climate. If anything, the US seems to be right behind in a good number of rankings, so not great at all. The article itself mentions it too.

The article here highlights a different problem though. As they wrote, China may be a top polluter, but they’re investing in green and clean energy sectors and is already known to be fully dominating EVs and solar. It’s in their interest to do so not just for profits, but also for energy independence, which would reduce a leverage the world has over it, it would be easier for them to further their global agenda. The US, having to fight Big Oil all the way, is dragging its feet, and by electing Trump, they’re essentially saying “fuck the climate and green tech”, so it’s essentially letting China take the whole stage, if they’re not already hogging it.

If Trump does pull out of all green initiatives, which we all know he’s very likely to do, China will take the opportunity to have free reign at growing its soft power over all the world through its dominance in green energy and tech, displacing the current, already weakening soft power held by the US. And China absolutely knows how to wield their powers; we’ve seen this in their handling of various projects they’ve invested in many countries across the world: South America, South Africa, South East Asia (yeah yeah, “Global South”, sure).

Idk about pre-orders but I’d imagine it’s a combo of many things, from Xiaomi already having the finances, to tax breaks and subsidies from the CCP, and subsidies on the domestic consumer side to encourage adoption to further stabilize the industry, which further encourages investments.

Definitely not within reach physically, but good to see what’s available out there. Thanks for replying!

It did not occur to me that they’d do this with ebikes but now I’m concerned. Would be nice to know what you found for the day when I decide to get one.