They are behaving as if someone promised them to outlaw FOSS operating systems.

I hate the word “inventor”

It’s nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you’re good.

That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I’m lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.

Other than that people can’t care about every problem at once.

Ideologies aren’t about dogmatism, but about coherent groups of conclusions based on underlying analysis.

This sentence translates to choosing a model and then trying to hammer the reality to fit under it. Which is obviously dogmatism.

The funniest part is that leftist pseudointellectualism, where there is no actual discussion happening, but a leftist thinks there is because of the tone they use. Also hints at them acting this way in other situations, that is, being used to dogmatism.

Without dogmatism people change models like tools, each one for its own job. They don’t call themselves any kind of -ist.

It’s pretty telling that you out yourself as a Libertarian though, lmao.

Literally the opposite of what I’ve said, lmao. Reading comprehension skills on par with your self-identification.

Leftist ideologies include dogmatic statements. Just like all other ideologies. Otherwise we wouldn’t use the word “ideology” at all.

If this were true, you’d say that left ideas are the closest to your expectation of what’s best and that’d be fine, and not call yourself leftist. Now it’s as if you are putting ideology above practice.

Which would be the same as me always feeling as if I were lying while, say, saying that I’m a libertarian or a distributist, because I have no permanent attachment to any ideology, just these seem sane now. So I rarely say that and feel bad when I do.

Which efficient and not failing systems does your kind of leftists propose?

Leaving it open is a valid political position of making efficiency more important than ideology.

I don’t know which architectures may be invented in the future to work, I’m not against them coming from leftist premises, but I’ve met fewer leftists interested in even imagining them than libertarians or even conservatives.

When most leftists are too busy with hating on groups of people and thinking about what others own, it’s really hard to talk to them about anything real.

I’ve literally finished my comment with it.

If your point is …

You know, of course, that the answer to that “if” is usually “no”, and this is called a strawman argument.

… then I’m afraid …

No reason to be afraid! Sing and dance and hug your family, friends and house animals.

… relatively few historical examples … people sharing tools …

People have been sharing tools since eating less fortunate breeds of people, the optimal architecture of that is the point of contention.

Never tried for real, I see.

Why would one hate right ideas then, of the libertarian kind.

Historians studying them don’t hate, true, but we also don’t hate plague or dog shit on the road.

They’ll just surrender to the lawful government of the Chinese Republic.

China is entrenched as a leader in world industry and attempting to contain them is impossible.

Oh. That’s delusional.

It’s funny how “second echelon” states’ enthusiasts are making the same mistakes in every century. From the German Empire to Soviet Union to China.

Scale is not the only thing that matters and China is not innovative. It’s functioning as a huge factory for the rest of the world, and making lots of money and influence in process, but for the world it can be replaced, while the world can’t be replaced for China.

Autarky is not possible for China. It could have had a chance at that 20-15 years ago, but it’s gone.

Especially with its demographic and political tendencies.

Eh, I haven’t had an opportunity to ask, but I think they do identify as Chinese. Just not as citizens of PRC, because they are citizens of another sovereign state.

So China wants to be nuked by the US because of not backing down with their aggression in this case?

Some of the Chinese nukes would be shot down in such a course of events - there are systems like THAAD. AFAIK China doesn’t have anything similar, so the response strike is going to be more efficient.

There’s no rule or law preventing two Chinese states from existing on one planet. You pretending otherwise doesn’t change anything.

In Europe there are two states, the Federal Republic of Germany and Austria, coexisting just fine (there’s also Switzerland, no government of which ever pretended to be the unifying center of Germany).

That’s just a counterexample to shoot down your bullshit without many words.

I agree about India, but you seem to overestimate Russia.

The populations and economies are just too different.

If PRC decides it needs the Russian Far East and wants it militarily, it’s going to take it. Maybe only the southern parts, they don’t need all the empty frozen land. Maybe in 20 years, maybe in 40, maybe in 80 years.

And in the very long term, if China subdues Central Asia in any way, then it can get a piece of southern Siberia too, but that’s like trying to predict WWII from Wallenstein’s times.

“Never” is always a wrong thing to say.

You should add that the “sometime after” was also often sometime after WWII, so they are not very historical, look ugly and take space.

I agree, but one can ascribe that to corporate influence (or wish to win corporate love) too. Such a decision on first glance makes sense for using XMPP as a constructor for various system integration tasks, or for making proprietary services using it inside (not retroactively, but well).

offtopic: The eszett strictly speaking was a ligature for ‘sz’, which Hungarian orthography kinda preserved while for German the separated version is ‘ss’, and there’s plenty of such stuff in nature.

In most programming languages, case-insensitive string compare without specifying the culture became deprecated. It should imo only be used for fuzzy searching doubles, which you probably will do with ToUpper on all four performance reasons, or maybe some UI validation.

Thank you for saying that more clearly.