To translate from one language to another, you need to know both languages very well, including puns, idioms, etc., and have a deep understanding of both cultures involved. A word for word translation will rarely do; you may even have to come up with new jokes / references to replace ones that don’t work in the target language.

If you have read translations of manga by, say, Rumiko Takahashi, you might have seen footnotes explaining all the puns and references. And even this is not ideal, since it breaks the reader’s flow.

What exactly is the point of rolling release?

Newer features. At the cost of a higher risk of stuff breaking.

Or is it for security?

No, point release OSs do have security updates. It’s feature updates that they avoid.

The ecological impact of an pre-industrial community is generally much smaller than that of an industrial one.

they’ve only been there since the 1300s

So? Please finish that thought.

Or the fact that they are not white gives them special privileges.

You know what, YES! It does! Now go cry about it.

human habitation on New Zealand has a history of less than a thousand years

I know. My point is that cats (or the Maori) have a minuscule impact on the environment when compared to settlers.

the word “aborigines” in that part of the world carries a potentially problematic connotation.

I see. What would be a more respectful alternative?

Yes, but I think we need to distinguish between the native population, which has proven capable of co-existing with the local ecosystem, and the settlers, who’ll need to be culled.

Maybe we can be a little animale and let the aborigines adopt the more tame settlers. Find them nice, loving homes, you know? The rest will unfortunately need to be euthanised.

You know, I can think of one species that’s a lot more harmful to the environment. Maybe the cats of NZ should start hunting non-native members of that species.

Da Wei: gives step by step instructions only for players to ignore them and get stuck (reading is hard).

Also Da Wei: designs a fast, strong and tough endgame boss only for some psycho to hit-stun her, yeet her around the arena, kill her by fall damage and post it on Bilibili for the lolz.

No it’s like a duel where one person keeps shooting himself in the foot and the other gets increasingly confused.

If you lose enough money, you trigger an integer overflow and end up with a profit!

As far as we know we have not found the colonialism gene, and there is no evidence that Europeans are somehow genetically different at this locus. So we can, at least for now, ignore the possibility that Europeans are inherently evil, or predisposed towards colonialism. Rather, the actions of any people must be understood as a consequence of their circumstances and culture.

due to all that’s happened in history, white people today are, while not intrinsically or genetically evil, tainted by the colonialism that has already happened and are therefore more likely to be the exploiters than the exploited due to their historical advantage.

White people are not only the beneficiaries of the colonialism that has already happened, they are often also the beneficiaries of colonialism that is currently happening. The CIA didn’t coup random Central American countries because they were bored. The IMF and World Bank don’t give loans to African countries for humanitarian reasons.

But human societies are not species and human-human interactions are not strictly ecological. For one, human societies have overarching coordination and collective will that species don’t have, and human societies as a whole often show more characteristics akin to a single organism than a species (though even that is apples to oranges)

I feel that the same principles that govern other animals should apply, more or less, to humans too. Although it might be more appropriate to compare human societies to populations of social animals (such as ant colonies or beehives) than to different species.

Does that imply that Imperial China was less evil than Imperial Europe? Or are they just as evil but in a different way (land-based conquest instead of sea based)? Or did they just not have the resources to do what Europe did but absolutely would have if they did? I don’t know hence why I’m asking.

I think the difference is that historically China had excellent agricultural land, a relatively modern and stable economy, and was surrounded by poorer and less advanced countries. So people had all the resources they wanted, and had little incentive to go far away. In contrast, Europe was fragmented, with Scotland, the Netherlands and Portugal actually having poor / too little land, and so there was a push for both raw materials and markets.

As far as I know, no one was forced to change their religion (Uyghurs aren’t even the biggest Muslim group in China, that’s the Hui) and there was no mass murder. I believe some innocent people who were wrongly suspected of being terrorists were strip-searched, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Yogthos, Cowbee etc. have given very detailed answers below. From what I know, the things they said are mostly correct. However, one point to note is that a very small minority of Uyghur people, who were influenced by fundamentalist Wahhabi teachings, carried out terrorist attacks against non-Uyghur people in the 2010s. So there was an atmosphere of fear and suspicion against all the Uyghurs, and many innocent people were subjected to searches, arrests, and so on. This has been documented by the UN. Of course, this is not dissimilar to the way Muslims were treated in France or the US after terrorist attacks. In fact, representatives from Muslim countries who visited Xinjiang praised the government’s response, as it included a lot of job creation and infrastructure projects to turn people away from extremism.

Every country is ‘authoritarian’. That’s pretty much the practical definition of a country - that they, and they alone, can use force within their borders.

If you travel to another country, you should of course consider your own safety, as well as whether that country crosses something you see as a red line. To give an example, I oppose state restrictions on religion (unless they are dangerous to the public), am a republican, and support Palestinian independence. But I would visit France, the UAE or Germany if I got the chance, and I would try to understand why they have those policies (restrictions on Muslims’ clothes, monarchy, and ban on criticising Israel). But I would not go to the US, since getting shot by a random madman is not good for health.

This is simplistic. If reform works, do it. If it cannot, use force. Even Marx, if I remember correctly, supported the reformist Chartists in relatively democratic countries like England (while supporting revolutionary methods in feudal Germany).

Euro won’t work. For other countries to use the Euro, they need to have Euro stocks. For this, the EU needs to (1) run a deficit, and (2) manufacture something of value to the rest of the world. But the EU won’t run a deficit, and its manufacturing sector is collapsing.

Ah, sorry. On the phone, open Settings and go Apps -> Manage Apps. Then choose an app and click the three dots on the top right. Select App Info, and look under App Name. This is equivalent to what UAD shows.

Oh that’s nice. No need for the computer then.

It has a GUI, and clearly shows what apps can be safely removed versus whst apos are load-bearing.