Israel:
Unknown, unrelated, not anywhere on this map because this is overlaid on a real-world map, not fictional (or "religious" if you wrongly insist that's a different category from fiction)
West Bank, Gaza, and Palestinian land occupied by people who call themselves Israelis:
Turkish now? Not sure why Turkey would move south but I don't see what other country is supposed to be that dominant on this map
We did without auxiliary motors for a long time. The only reason a motor would be needed is if everyone is too greedy to pay for the work to be done right (having a big enough crew for rowing).
But the crew can't stop the world from being greedy, so it makes sense that they're using sails and a motor to improve on what they can.
Sell them to me for a dollar each. I will rent them out for free in exchange for someone putting sails on them.
This era honestly sucks so much, the only way the next era can show a lot of progress is if it shows a lot of reversion.
"What if we took the sails off every fucking cargo ship?" is a sick question, and when society has answered that with "yeah let's do it," the sickness runs a lot deeper than that. We've just been taking insane/stupid ideas and running with them for a long time.
Rust adds another layer of trusting the compiler isn't backdoored. All UNIX/Linux systems use the gcc toolchain, so having it written in C would mean less dependencies for the OS.
Strange times.
Idk what’s up with your apparent obsession with being banned, but if that’s a problem for you - maybe you should reconsider the way you interact with people on the internet.
No, you. If you're using most online platforms without getting banned, you're not trying hard enough to make the right choices. Or you're very young or something.
It’s really not hard to avoid bans in most spaces.
Sure, a lot of people find it more convenient to go along with the crowd than to do the right thing. Ad populum fallacy is very popular. It seems like you're trying to allude to some other bullshit though.
Just follow the rules.
No thanks. Have reasonable rules, or embarrass yourselves / possibly doom your planet by silencing everyone that stands up to abusive authority figures. You'll actually pick one of the suggestions in my previous sentence, whereas your suggestions for me are based on an unrealistic view of me as someone spineless, or an unrealistic view of authority as something so inherently reasonable that anyone who makes a rule must deserve to have their rules followed.
My whole point is that removing abusive and hateful content isnt censorship, its responsible moderation.
Then your point is incorrect because this is a political discussion space. Open a dictionary and check what "censorship" is. It's irresponsible moderation.
Any online community that allows hate speech is not a community I want anything to do with.
And if we're lucky, your kind won't make the planet extinct before being left behind by a more reasonable future majority of humans.
If you let Nazis in your bar, you have a Nazi bar.
I don't have a bar or go to bars. I live in the US where it seems impossible to have a non-Nazi bar by my standards, and your standard here is even tighter, to where I don't see how any bar anywhere on earth could avoid being Nazi by your standards. So a bar seems like a weird comparison for internet discussion, where the Nazi places are more like the ones that promote echo chambering to help Nazism rise up (which includes banning Nazi ideas from many political spaces)
I'm not going to report them, I'm just trying not to let them bait me into getting myself banned.
The problem is if I did give them the reply they deserved, I might be banned when I'm the one treating them fairly, and I doubt they'd face a longer ban for baiting me or anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right, me trying to get them banned doesn't help with the fact that online spaces form bullying cults that ban victims. Either neither of us should be banned, or the instigator should be banned without punishing the victim. If you really feel like punishing victims, it would at least look less culty and psychopathic if instigators were treated more harshly. But I'm not the one removing the option to just let everyone talk freely with no bans for non-spammers.
Obviously a fake rule, since I don't see any risk of the person I was replying to being banned.
Like most online discussion spaces these days, the "moderation" isn't spam filtering, it's censorship by bullies who conveniently pretend they're only censoring bullies. At least that's my guess based on vote scores on certain content
Seems like you're trying to bait me into a response that could be used as an excuse to ban me. Try this bullshit on nostr if you can handle talking somewhere you can't just ban people who stand up to your bullying.
If you copy and paste your reply to me on nostr, I'll be happy to explain the basic English definitions you're asking me for (instead of a dictionary) while insulting my intelligence, but I'll also insult yours back in a more appropriate way.
Edit - you obviously won't actually reply on nostr, because you're an authoritarian bully, but if you did, I'd feel a bit proven wrong about you and not immediately say anything I'd get banned for. It's only here, that I want to say anything I'd get banned here for. Kind of a catch 22 type thing
Gene pool.
I'm just adding the phrase "gene pool" in a reply because I assume the heavy-handed moderation of this platform is why it's been left out of the discussion so far.
The real impact on the future is terrifying. Gene pool.