markko

Just use your hyperfocus superpowers

/s

It's been a few years since the US invaded Iraq... Regardless, China's investment in oil production does not translate to consumption. About half of Iraq's oil was going to the US around 2004.

China gains power and influence in foreign nations through significant investment in infrastructure (often leading to enormous debt), which is going to result in significant long-term gains for China. The US approach is to smash the front door down and loot the place, then install a puppet who is hopefully loyal to them and won't be easily ousted.

I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either of them, but I know which one I'd choose if I had to pick one.

I did consider less common uses like that, which is why I specified "general reading". I prefer paper for my sheet music, but I'd choose something with a faster refresh rate than e-ink if I had to use something with a screen anyway.

The only reason I'd want 2 "pages" is so I could close it to protect the screen(s)... but that's exactly what covers are for.

Apart from the tiny minority of people who might prefer the form factor/"book feel", are there any actual advantages to having 2 screens for general reading?

I heard this more than a few times over a year ago. Sure, it's getting better, but there will always be limitations and weak points, even if they require more effort to detect.

A much happier ending than I expected.

I'm guessing this is what you're talking about?

Yep I got the feeling that we were of similar minds about it but I wanted to provide some balance in case anyone else was weighing up switching to a different browser.

I knew JS was his handiwork, but I wasn't aware of his significant role at Mozilla or that he is also behind Brave, so thanks for sharing that link.

According to your link below he was co-founder of Mozilla in 1998. Based on the other information on that page, he had a very significant role in shaping Mozilla and their tools, so as disagreeable as his personal views may be, it's not impossible that Firefox might not even exist today were it not for his work there.

Someone else has already pointed out that he was pushed out, but he actually resigned due to public pressure (he was only CEO for 11 days, and one of the board members even left due to him being appointed) before going on to found Brave and becoming the CEO there lol.

If I chose not to use products based on the personal beliefs of the people who worked on them I don't think I'd have very many options. Mozilla has made heaps of questionable decisions over the years, but the other options are generally much worse.

I wouldn't usually continue to engage, but you don't actually come across as a hasbarist. I do agree with quite a few of the things you've said, but the conclusions you seem to come to regarding modern Israel are, at the very least, confusing.

If you understand Zionism's history then you must understand that the modern state of Israel would not exist without Zionism. One of Zionism's core principles is colonisation^. Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.

^Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.

The views I have expressed are mostly directed specifically at the state, not every single individual. Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.

These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.

While my comment about Australia was facetious, the intent was to point out that, regardless of the history, the treatment of the local populations in both situations is wrong, but in Australia amends are slowly being made. I don't think the comment you're referring to meant "peaceful coexistence" in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say "no major conflict"), but were more likely thinking along the lines of "peaceful enough to coexist", whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.

Yeah you're right about that from a safety perspective. The original comment was talking about civilians taking the law into their own hands though, and that's what my reply was focused on.

Very different situation. Home invaders are generally thieves. Home insurance will get you your stuff back. Life insurance won't give you your life back.