reliv3

The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.

The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the "neutral" USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.

The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.

To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan's surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.

It's complicated. Yes, the country is going to shit, but it is also due to meta's "Big brother-like" data collection in the name of profit margins.

As mentioned in the article, Facebook could remove itself from this problem by not collecting data that could possibly incriminate people. The reason why they were able to hand over the data is because they were collecting their private messages.

Reading your links, the correction you made seems semantically insignificant. Yumi is the word for "bow" in Japanese and longbows describe bows that are long. Longbows are not unique to the English, and there are a lot of bows that can be described as longbows. So my point is, if samurais used yumis that are long (which some did) then saying they used longbows is not incorrect. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us know what the Japanese called their bows, it was educational.

Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it's entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.

The kid being "black" in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said "I saw a large man at the door and I got scared" and it would not have been any different, since it isn't like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. "Black" is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.

The big bang (if it is still a valid theory) would have been unlike any explosion you have ever witnessed. The big bang was not an explosion of only matter, since time and space were both created during this event as well.

The article answers your question.

Unlike most jobs, contract jobs are taxed more and require the worker to pay the out of pocket to operate. In the case of food delivery workers, this means the gas or electricity to run their vehicle and the maintenance costs for said vehicle.

Project Zomboid. Feels like a Sims game with zombie and great survival elements. Arguably, the best zombie survival game to hit the market. Supports split screen couch co-op.

Folks, we do understand that when Kamala was a senator, her vote on topics were statistically aligned with Bernie Sanders.

While a senator, Kamala's votes aligned almost 100% with protecting the environment (according to the League of Conservation voters.

She agreed with Bernie Sanders "College for all" act which would fund tuition for lower income students looking to go to a public university.

She co-sponsered a bill to ban assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and to limit gunstores advertising campaigns.

She backed the "Medicare for all" bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders, which would have established a government funded Healthcare system which would provide health insurance to all Americans and remove private health insurance.

In terms of immigration, she wanted to put ICE under a microscope and reexamine their practices, she supports DACA, opposes a border wall, and wants to investigate a means to alleviate illegal immigration by attacking the problems in central and South America which is causing these folks to try to run to the USA.

At the end of the day, I would not be surprised if Biden was influenced by her ideas, because if you look at what he has done in his four year term, he has moved his political needle more left.

Sauce: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kamala-harris-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

To be fair to Clinton, she did do some pain. Remember when she called many of the people who supported Trump, "deplorables". This riled up America as if she was going too far with describing them this way. Here we are almost a decade later, and we are starting to realize that she was right.

The political landscape is far different now than it was when it was Hilary vs. Trump. Trump has done his four years, and we have now seen the damage he and his constituents have done. We see now that the republican party watched Handmaid's Tale and agreed with the fictional government in that story. There is no hiding how deplorable some of these folks are especially with the publishing of Project 2025.

Wasn't it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn't really make sense.

they need to make that known by voting for representativea that feel the same

Be nice if it was that simple, but the democratic system itself is broken. We have presidents that come in power while losing the popular vote. We have states that gerrymander their districts to reduce the value of certain demographic's vote. We have supreme court justices with life terms that are interpretting laws with political bias. Unfortunately, it is getting less and less likely that America is going to improve by working within it's systems because the system is clearly stacked against us.

You realize that you're currently being con'd. Netanyahu wants Trump to win the presidential election, because he knows Trump will be friendly towards his genocidal actions. Netanyahu is doing everything in his power to extend this genocide so that he can stay in power; and so that he can keep single issue voters like you away from the polls.

Netanyahu knows that if he ended Israel's genocide before the election, the Biden administration would receive credit in playing a role in mediating the conflict. This would likely assure a Harris victory. By escalating the conflct, he is assisting Trump. Why would you think that this genocidal maniac is doing this?

So here you are, the single issue voter that is tuning out all of the other important issues. For example, Trump considers communist (all you genius tankies) some of the biggest enemies in the USA; or how Trump backers and policymakers wants to remove women's right to make decisions about their bodies.

Do I believe that Biden/Harris has done enough to help Palestinians? The answer is no. Do I believe Biden/Harris feels like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are in the wrong? Yes. Do I believe Trump feels like Israel is in the wrong? No.

So even if this is your single issue, as an American living thousands of miles from Israel, your best way to assist Palestinians right now is to put someone in the Whitehouse who at least views them as human-beings. By not voting or voting third-party, you're not helping anyone but yourself. You are doing it so you don't need to "feel bad" about crossing some morale boundary.

Listen man, if that's the route you want to go, then fine. But I'm gonna go ahead and waltz my sorry butt to the polls and cast my vote for the person who will more likely do something to assist Palestinians even if I feel like I'm crossing a moral boundary. Am I gonna feel good doing it? No. But it's the better decision to make, especially considering all the other important issues that surround this election beyond the Palestinian genocide.

The reality is: if you don't understand why providing "white" scholarships is very different from providing "people of color" scholarships, then you don't have a full understanding of how Racism manifests in America. This is a fundamental thing you will need to work to better understand before a discussion of this topic can be useful.

Nevertheless, you are correct that not every white person in America take advantage of generational wealth, but this is besides the point. The fact is Black Americans have been in this country for 400 years and the community is still disproportionately impoverished, whereas there are a lot of European/Asian immigrants who have been here for much less time and they are much better off. You kind of make this observation in your response, but missed the implications it has on how Racism rewards certain demographics.

Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃

I agree with this sentiment, but Christianity is partly defined by "spreading the word of god". So "telling people what to believe" is par for the course (think missionaries).

Curious though, why do you not refer to yourself as atheist? Non-religious is actually not very specific. Non-religious can mean Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or Atheist.

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing. I'm just pointing out that people are assuming "English Longbow" when saying "longbow". Which, to be fair to these folks, the English Longbow is likely the most famous longbow in history. Nevertheless, even the Wikipedia page sourced above mentions that longbows existed in "many cultures" and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, "longbow" and "English Longbow" though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.

By this metric, one can argue that we currently "misuse" a lot of words in the English language, but the reality is language evolves. Think about how the definition of "nice" has evolved from meaning "ignorant or stupid" in the 1300s to it's current meaning.

I've noticed that words that are considered "profanity" tend to be vernacular words that express negative emotions (pain, anger, frustration, etc). The fact that these words are considered profane seems a bit unhealthy, because it limits our ability to verbally express how we are feeling internally. Nevertheless, I think some people might use these words too often. If one is cursing every other word all the time, then it's a bit like "crying wolf" once they use it when they're actually experiencing a strong negative emotion.

The reality is the civil rights movement is both about increasing the social power of non-white citizens AND decreasing the social power of white citizens.

The former is what usually feels okay for white citizens, but the latter tends to be what white folks call "reverse racism". It doesn't feel great losing the social power tied to your caste, but it's necessary to create an equal opportunity society.

From your description, it sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some faith to be an Atheist. Personally, I agree with your points, so I'd be more of an Agnostic Atheist too; but I am somewhat convinced that science has decent evidence which disproves the old and new testament god. I believe our scientific understanding of our universe suggests god would not give a shit whether it was worshipped and it would not be some moral judge. It's consciousness (if we can even call it that) would be so far beyond what humans could comprehend that our puny human morales and ethical dilemmas would be irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, I still think human morales and ethics are important, because us Agnostic Atheists don't need the fear of divine retribution to do the right thing.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs in such detail. I appreciate it. Sorry to hear about your experience with those forcing their religion on you due to being transgendered. I am cisgendered, but I like to consider myself an ally. I have a lgbtq+ flag flying in my classroom (I'm a teacher) and I already had to give a student a stern talk for telling me that "god loves you" after looking at my flag

You are making such a useless point that requires minimal effort or thought. It would be better if you actually shared a tangible concern rather than providing a strawman argument meant to cause an irrational fear in people reading your comment.

For example, you could have shared which group of people you want to be a protected class and is not by Irish law; or which group of people is currently a protected class by Irish law and should not be. At least, then, you would have brought up a real concern about how the Irish government is determining hate speech; because right now, all you are doing is fear mongering.

That's pretty cool that you did archery at a national level.

Respectfully, I still think that I am correctly interpretting the information on the Wikipedia links sourced above. I'm basing my conclusion off two pieces of evidence. The longbow wiki page linked above mentions that longbows existed in "many cultures", and there is a separate Wikipedia page for the English Longbow. This pushes me to conclude that there is a symantical difference between the two terms, "longbow" and "English Longbow" though many people assume the latter when the former is mentioned.

Okay, this notion is just incorrect. Harris, during her time as senator, was one of the most left leaning senators out of all Democrats. Her votes almost completely aligned with Bernie Sanders.

Was misogyny THE reason Harris loss, probably not; but it definitely played a meaningful role. During the campaign race, there were a lot of information being pushed to American citizens. It was up to us to process the information and choose what to believe and what to throw away. Post-election, we are learning that people were judging Harris based on false premises. Americans were willing to believe a lot of bullshit about Harris, whereas Trump got the opposite treatment: Americans willingfully ignored terrible truths about Trump. I think misogyny played a role in defining this difference in how we treated information regarding each candidates.