We need them all gone. Anyone who makes "politician" a career is precisely the wrong type of person to be an elected official. It should never be about personal gain. Wipe them all out, implement campaign finance reform, set term limits, prioritize election security & availability...
It's not enough. The only thing that might make a difference will get this comment removed. And we may have even passed the point for that to have an impact.
Not the same country but another example of a culturally similar attitude towards shame over failure: In Japan in 1985, Flight 123, a massive Boeing 747 carrying 524 people, lost control shortly after takeoff from Tokyo en route to Osaka.
The plane's aft pressure bulkhead catastrophically exploded, causing total decompression at the high altitude, severing all four of the massive plane's hydraulic stabilizer systems and entirely tearing away its vertical stabilizer.
With these the 747 basically became uncontrollable and minutes later, despite tremendously heroic efforts by the pilots to turn back and crash land it with some modicum of survivability for themselves and the passengers, the flight slammed into a mountain close to Tokyo, killing hundreds.
The resulting investigation showed that the failed bulkhead had burst open due to faulty repair welding several years before. The two technicians most responsible for clearing that particular shoddy repair both committed suicide soon after the crash tragedy. One of them even left a note specifically stating "With my death I atone". (paraphrasing from memory here)
I can't even begin to imagine a modern Boeing executive or senior staffer doing the same.
Same couldn't be said for Japanese military officials after the tragedy though, so who knows about cultural tendencies:
Right after the crash, helicopters were making ready to fly to the scene (it was night by this point) and a nearby U.S military helicopter squadron also even offered to fly in immediately. The local JSDF administration however stood all these requests down until the following morning, on the claim that such a tremendous crash must not have left anyone alive, so why hurry?
As it turned out, quite a number of people had incredibly survived, and slowly died during the night from exposure to cold and their wounds, according to testimony from the four who did survive to be rescued, and doctors who later conducted postmortems on the bodies.
Interesting case too, and that he committed suicide despite not really being blamed from what I just read.
On the other hand you have cases like the MV Wewol ferry disaster, also in South Korea, in which well over 250 passengers died horribly. Most of them were just kids, high school students on a trip. The causes leading up to the tragedy, the accident management by the crew itself and the subsequent rescue, body retrieval and investigation, were absolutely riddled with negligence, incompetence, bad management and all kinds of blame shifting.
The owner of the ferry company itself had an arrest warrant issued for him, then fled and only later was found in a field dead and presumed to have committed suicide.
Underlying all this is that even these apparent cultural ideas of committing suicide to atone for the shame of some gigantic mistake don't seem to prevent people from actually making these kinds of mistakes or doing things more responsibly in the first place.
I would also be fine with US politicians and corporate executives landing in jail. At this point, any consequences will be more than they currently face.
We are a country without kings. No one should be above the law. Those tasked with upholding the law should be held to higher standards. I'm not sure why these are even up for debate
The weird thing is 13 days later his temporary successor Han was also impeached, basically because he vetoed two bills doing investigations into Yoon. IIRC, the constitutional court wasn’t fully appointed yet. And also apparently, an impeachment is a simple majority in the Assembly, and appears the DPK (the current majority party) has been impeaching everyone they disagree with.
My wife, who’s from Korea, says that Lee, the now president, apparently had a “revolutionary” past, and was thrown in jail; and also one justice from the court also had a criminal record.
It’s pretty crazy over there, Lee’s probably safe right now just because his party’s the majority. But it also sounds like they’ve been abusing the impeachment process against the minority party.
> 13 days later his temporary successor Han was also impeached
Crazier than that![0]
- Han Duck-soo: Acting president for 13 days. Impeached for refusing to investigate Yoon Suk Yeol and Kim Keon Hee (Yoon's wife).
- There were 192 votes against him and 108 members *abstained* from voting. This meant that they failed to form a quorum. *This vote was strictly party lines*
- They ruled that they only need 50% approval because Han was the Prime Minister. *President needs 2/3rds btw*
- Choi Sang-mok: was the acting PM for those 13 days. But only serves for 87!
- 24 March SK's (equivalent to) supreme court overrules Han's impeachment 7-1, and Han once again becomes the acting president.
So he was impeached after 13 days for trying to bury Yoon's impeachment case, the Conservatives refuse to show up to the hearing, and months later he gets reinstated by the highest court.
> the DPK has been impeaching everyone they disagree with.
My understanding is that there's kinda a history of this as well as pardoning. Take Park Geun-hye[2] as an example. She was the leader of the GNP (Grand National Party; SK's conservative party), and in December 2016 she was impeached (234 to 56) for influence peddling. Hwang Kyo-ahn (Prime Minister) becomes acting president. In March of 2017, their supreme court upholds the impeachment unanimously, and in May Moon Jae-in (DPK) becomes president. April 2018 Park is sentenced to 24 years in jail, and then is further prosecuted for stealing money from Korea's CIA and interfering in elections. In December 2021 Hwang pardons her and she's back home early 2022.
Before Yoon was Moon Jae-in (DPK), who the GNP tried to impeach in 2019. (Hwang Kyo-ahn was acting after Park's impeachment, who preceded Moon).
Before Park was Lee Myung-bak (GNP). He got 15 years in prison. In 2022 Yoon gave him a pardon.
Before Lee was Roh Moo-hyun (Liberal party) (Goh Kun was in between because...) but was impeached (193 to 2) in 2004 and his supporters were literally fighting people in the assembly. Month later supreme court overturned impeachment. After he left presidency people around him started getting sentenced. In 2009 he threw himself off a cliff as investigations were following him too.
Since the 60's they've had a president exiled, a coup, and even an assassination. It's fucking wild!
More often than not the suicide covers a whole organization's dirty laundry. You'll have people drunk and driving their cars over cliffs [0], low profile actors ending their life as shit hits the fan [0] etc.
Then some on the lower rank might still end their life to spare their family financially (insurance money) or because they're just so done with it all, which I'd put more on depression than anything.
Us putting it on shame is IMHO looking at it through rose colored glasses and masking the dirtier reality to make it romantic.
In Korea, shame often serves as the primary motivator behind high-profile suicides. It's rooted in the cultural concept of "chemyeon (체면)", which imposes immense pressure to maintain a dignified public image.
Do you have any example of these high profile suicides that can't be better explained as "taking one for the team" for lack of a better idiom.
Shame is a powerful social force throughout the society, but we're talking about systematic screwings more often than not backed by political corruption (letting incompetent entities deal with gov contract on basis of political money and other favors) or straight fraud.
Steve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.
And that shouldn't have happened either. Apple doesn't need the US government, and Tim is himself a billionaire— he sure as hell doesn't personally need them either.
I actually think understanding exactly how your customers do a thing is not an easy thing to be 100% sure of.
I've had sales, customer reps, even engineers and customers describe how a customer / they work ... and then I go and look and ... it's not how anyone said they work IRL.
There have been public reports by major news organizations on the subject of Israel using big tech companies to surveil the West Bank and Gaza, for a decade. This isn't an issue of customer privacy.
The difference is that pre-2023 it could at least have some plausible excuse of trying to detect terrorist activity. With Israel's current actions in Gaza, there is no longer any plausible excuse or defense for any security action Israel is conducting towards Palestinians.
Israel has a legitimate reason to want to try to intercept and detect terrorist activity, but given what they've been doing in Gaza for the past year and a half, they simply can't be trusted. They've lost all credibility and benefit of the doubt. So they can't expect other entities to help them do something they say is legitimate, because no one can trust them to do something in a legitimate and ethical way.
I think OP’s point is Israel’s legitimate surveillance needs have risen alongside their credibility crashing. This isn’t a simply reduced problem unless one has a horse in the race.
I understand that, and I am sympathetic to those needs to some degree. They do have increased legitimate surveillance needs. But they've lost all of their good will. Partnering with them is too morally and PR-ily hazardous.
I am not saying Israel is nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, but I think this argument is overall kind of pointless because one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland.
> one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland
This is an interesting comparison—thank you.
That said, did the Poles launch cross-border attacks on German civilians? The closest I can come up with is Bloody Sunday [1], which was an attack on ethnically German civilians, but not a cross-border incursion. (Granted, we can only observe this ex post facto, so your argument still stands.)
Israel's incursion into Gaza in October 2023 was more justifiable than Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, yes. I wasn't trying to provide a full comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel, and I prefaced the sentence appropriately. My only point is that a nation having legitimate surveillance needs to protect their soldiers' and civilians' safety isn't a reason to support their surveillance efforts by itself.
Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian land before being handed over by colonial powers and then "won" in subsequent "wars" (read: massacres) on the barely-armed villagers living there? The Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes. Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948. If your country was occupied and members of your family killed, would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
> Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian
That's how borders work. (Anything else is, by definition, a border dispute.) If the Armia Krajowa had bulldozed into Lithuania on the logic that they lost it due to foreign meddling, they would have tarnished their record. (Despite the claim being true.)
> Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes
On their own turf. And as for the former, against military targets--nobody serious in the Viet Cong or USSR was plotting Al Qaeda-style attacks on the American homeland.
October 7th was a terrorist attack. It was plotted like a military operation. But so was 9/11.
> would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
Not particularly. But I'd want to be fighting an actual resistance. 7 October attack was a strategic failure. The only reason it might end in a draw is because Netanyahu surrounded himself with maniacs. Even then, permanent damage has been done to the viability of a sovereign Palestine.
(There is also a massive difference between something being understandable and something being justified.)
So the problem is that you don't believe Palestinians are on their "own turf", because Israel "legally" won it from the villagers there in 1948 after having the British install them to it. Got it. Once again, the Palestinian homeland is exactly where the kibbutz (which is a military camp and outpost) was, mere miles from Gaza, and all of the people involved were actively standing members of the IDF (i.e. the occupying army akin to the Americans in Vietnam). You keep calling it a terrorist attack while appearing completely clueless that it's a largely meaningless political term. We considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist while he was locked up for 30 years, and for the UK at least he was only removed from that list in 2013.
> when the entire land was previously Palestinian land
No such thing as Palestinian. Just Islamic Arab. Choosing to label yourself the same as one name for the land doesn’t make the land yours. But also - who do you think occupied the land previously?
Sure, that must be why the very text of the Balfour Declaration specifies "Palestine" and why coins from the 19th century have been proven to show the same. I'm afraid the hasbara isn't gonna work anymore.
> Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948
Correction, Gaza was first occupied by Israel for a few months in 1956, then occupied continuously since 1967.
Regardless, by 1984, nearly half of the people in Gaza would have lived their entire lives under occupation, and the most would have lived at least half their lives under occupation.
Israel may have withdrawn from Gaza and forcibly removed their settlers, but they did not end the occupation since they created a naval blockade and control all entrance and exits from Gaza and decide what is allowed in for two decades
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. Israel's position is that the ended they occupation. The United Nations on the other hand, still considered Gaza occupied under international law this whole time.
The only way one could argue that it is no longer occupied is to say there wasn't a continuous Israeli military presence of boots on ground inside of Gaza. It was still being surveilled by satellite and the entire perimeter, people venturing too far at sea from the coast would be shot, drones would occasionally bomb people, everything and everyone going in and out was controlled by Israel (until Hamas tunnels were built), all cell phones allowed in contained surveillance technology, a fence with military outposts was constructed on the perimeter, and Israel bombed the one airport they tried to build.
So arguing it was "no longer occupied" after they pulled out the settlers is disingenuous, unless you're trying to argue that it couldn't be both an occupation and a concentration camp.
Not cross border. The only purpose German surveillance of Poland would have furthered would have been (again, with the benefit of hindsight) their own occupation. Not the safety of Germans in Germany.
If the Armia Krajowa had carried out an October 7 style attack on the German homeland, against German civilians, their memory would be mixed, not the virtually unblemished heroism they deservedly command in the historic record.
All of my comments in this thread are on the anti-Israel side but this is just such a terrible comparison in so many ways. One can detest what Israel is doing without at all trying to defend Hamas's October 7th attack.
The Palestinian-led military operation on October 7 did not involve killing babies.
One baby was killed. Another died 14 hours after birth after its pregnant mother was shot. Only one of those was conclusively shot by insurgents from Gaza (the UN fact-finding report[1], on page 44, notes that many Israelis were killed and injured by "friendly fire")
Out of 1200 non-Gazans killed, 33 were children, or 2.7%, and again, at least some of these deaths can be attributed to the Israeli military response. It should be noted that the casualty rate of Israel's response in Gaza has been at least 30% children.
It's bizarre that you bring up the infant casualties of Hamas October 7, of which there was 1, as evidence for calling it a terrorist attack, when the actual number of babies killed by Israel is an order of magnitude greater than the total number of people killed by Hamas on October 7
Nah, it's pretty undeniable. But this is mainly because Nazi Germany was singularly more of a force for evil than any other nation or organization in many centuries. They were uniquely horrible. So it's hard for anyone to be as bad as they were.
Oh, don't worry, there's plenty of lost credibility to go around. Nobody's coming out of this situation smelling like roses, other than maybe some Israeli and Gazan peace activists.
At some point, when basically the entire world is saying one thing and only two countries (the US & Israel) are saying the opposite, you really need something strong to convince someone that basically the whole world is wrong.
This is some lame right-wing outlet whose front page contains things like:
>The assessment, shared exclusively with the Free Beacon, follows mainstream media claims that cuts to global health funding will endanger life-saving programs
While not mentioning that, yes, the Trump administration's USAID cuts absolutely will kill millions of people.
The rest is shitting on Democrats and supporting Trump. Obviously some right-wing site is going to say whatever they can think of to try to defend Israel's actions.
I see the war in radically different terms than you. It's not a battle between who has the better historical claim to the land. It's a religious battle. It's a battle between radical Islam and the secular west.
For a fuller treatment of the defense of Israel from a secular view point.
At least you're honest. This is why the vast majority of Westerners support Israel, its colonialism and its right to kill as many brown people as they can, they just don't say it out loud.
Isn’t it the inverse? Gazans voted for Hamas, and still support them per polls. Hamas’s charter is to destroy Israel in particular but also to subordinate women, subordinate all other religions, undermine Western powers, etc. Their goals and ideology are explicitly in conflict with liberal orders that support things like women’s rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and so on.
Do you really think Hamas has killed more Israelis than Israel has killed Palestinians? Do you even know why Hamas exists? Do you have any idea how many years passed between the occupation in 1948 and massacres like the Nakba and Deir Yassin before Hamas was established? Also, no matter how much you want it to, your racism against brown people and fetishisation of "Judeo-Christian civilisation" doesn't justify killing them.
That's funny. In mid-October 2023 the narrative was "It doesn't matter who killed more" and now that so many Palestinians are dying - both by Israeli bombs and by Hamas rockets (1/3 to 1/5 fall back into the densely-populated Gaza strip) - the narrative is "Hamas has killed less Israelis than Israel has killed Palestinians".
The pro-Palestinian narrative adapts and changes as per the tides of war and the media. The Israeli narrative has remained consistent, even when it hurts.
Furthermore, your ideas about the colour of people's skin is an artifact of you dragging American racial issues into a place where they don't belong. The varied skin colours here favour neither side as darker or lighter.
No, the Palestinian narrative for those of us actually knowledgeable of history has not changed since 1948. As for Israel being consistent - how are those hostages doing? Cause it definitely doesn't care about any of them now (those it hasn't killed itself), and Netanyahu and others in the cabinet have admitted they want to occupy the land once more.
I'm not American, but you must be if you think racism magically stops outside of America. The racism most Americans and Zionists have towards brown people and the Islamophobia they have towards Muslims are some of their most prejudiced, and at least equal to any form of anti-Semitism you've ever experienced, but for some reason, you only believe in one of those. To be clear, "brown people" don't have to be "brown" just like black people aren't all black, it's a generic term that indicates a rough place of origin, and the point that you're clearly trying to obscure is that racism towards Palestinians is still racism no matter what colour they actually are.
You're right - such association with colour is not limited to Americans. I almost forgot being told about the slaves in the Gaza strip.
It turns out that Gazans call black-skinned Gazans "slaves". I've met black-skinned Bedouins but not black-skinned Gazans, and I don't know if the black-skinned Gazans are also Bedouins. I actually didn't know the word for slave in Arabic, but it was similar enough to the word in Hebrew that I was able to figure it out. I'd later have it confirmed. Not only do they called the black-skinned Gazans "slaves", they treat them as such as well. No lack of colour-motivated racism in the Gaza strip. Yes, I speak with Gazans in Arabic, and before October 7th I'd have conversations with them face to face.
As for Israeli racism - I think that we're the only country in the world who went out to help dark-skinned people immigrate en masse. Israel has a large Ethiopean community. I've had Ethiopean commanders in the army, and I work with quite a few Ethiopeans. I don't feel that they treat me in any unusual way, nor do I treat them in any unusual way.
I'm sure the Gazan friends you spoke to will be overjoyed you had face-to-face conversations with them before going online to advocate for their genocide, and that those conversations you had make them clearly savage enough to justify said genocide.
Are you really so wrapped up in your tech bubble in Tel Aviv that you can believe that? Here's some reading on a story even I knew off from the top of my head: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-wome.... And here's the rest of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel. Israel is easily the most racist "Western" country in the world, ahead of even the modern US. Hmm, maybe a genocide against Israelis would actually be justified because Israelis are just racist savages that think black people should be forcibly sterilised against their will?
> I'm sure the Gazan friends you spoke to will be overjoyed you had face-to-face conversations with them while advocating for their genocide, and that those conversations make them clearly savage enough to justify said genocide.
Since October 7th I haven't seen any Gazans face to face, but we have spoken on the phone and on Telegram. And I've never advocated for their genocide, rather I've advocated against the genocide of Jews. Anybody who supports Hamas, their goals, or their idealogy supports the genocide of Jews. It's right there in the Hamas charter.
I'll say it clearly. There is no genocide of Arabs, or Muslims, or Palestinians, or Gazans in the Gaza strip. There are many Gazans dying, and many of them are children. Many of them are killed as a result of Israeli actions, and many of them are killed as a result of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other organizations' actions. Israel does not systematically target children, only Hamas benefits from dead children. They say it clearly themselves.
So in your warped logic, the few thousand combined killed by all of the groups you named are more evil than the 60,000 killed by Israel (likely 100,000+ after Israel finally lets the UN in) and the true cost of the genocide can be calculated. Also, Israel just accidentally ended up with a collateral damage rate of 50%, just like several medical doctors have attested to it accidentally sniping tens of kids and people waiting for aid, and accidentally shooting 300 bullets into the vehicle holding Hind Rajab. I suggest you wake up and start moving toward the right side of history, along with the UN, Amnesty International, Oxfam and virtually every other major human rights organisation, because very soon it'll be too late and history isn't going to forget active enablers and propagandists like yourself.
I can only tell you that when I was in high school decades ago, I shared a viewpoint that was similar to yours. But after watching history unfold in real time for the last 35+ years, my viewpoint has had to shift. And shift a lot it has. I have had to begin accept some uncomfortable truths that were not yet reaching me. I see them now.
Considering that your view point is bolstered by a vast ecosystem, I do wonder what propaganda are you thinking of that is responsible for my change in views? Like what do you think I tune into that promotes the viewpoint I hold? I'm asking because I'd love to know what is so that I can listen to more of it! Mine is very hard to find. So if you know where it is - please tell me.
If this was how the world worked, we'd all be using Athenian democracy. There are plenty of things the whole world once believed that turned out to be wrong.
I wouldn’t have believed this until a few weeks ago. I then stated finding a lot of social media posts where people at pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protests talk about their goals, and many of them flat out say it is to bring down America and end its “empire”. They seem to use the same phrases in talking about this - I wonder if they get a script to use from the nonprofits they are a part of.
It is obvious that Israel is committing genocide. They don't even try to hide it! Indeed they revel in their cruelty. [1]
This historian[2] argues that openly committing genocide is a feature, not a bug, because it will lead to anti-semitism that will make diaspora Jews feel unsafe and bind them to Israel.
There is no doubt that people are suffering. But trying to pin that on Israel is only prolonging their suffering.
Let me ask you, who benefits from Palestinians dying? Or did you think that Hamas care about the Palestinian people. They do not - they care only about the Palestinian state.
> Let me ask you, who benefits from Palestinians dying?
Israel does. There's no need for a two state solution, the project of Greater Israel can be accomplished if they just kill anyone who they aren't able to forcibly expel from the land.
The first one seems to be after Microsoft's claim "and Microsoft has said it is reviewing a report in a British newspaper this month that Israel has used it to facilitate attacks on Palestinian targets".
The second one looks similar "Microsoft late last week said it was tapping a law firm to investigate allegations reported by British newspaper The Guardian".
The 3rd one seems to be a genuine example that Microsoft employees were reporting this specific contract violation concern - but I feel like there are more genuine examples I've heard of than just this one report.
The 4th one is a bit unclear, it seems to be a general complaint about the contract - not about specific violations of it.
Perhaps the more confounding question remaining is "what was so different about the report from The Guardian". It's not like these kinds of claims are new, or in small papers only, but maybe The Guardian was able to put together hard evidence from outside that allowed Microsoft to determine things without themselves going in breach of contract details?
> Perhaps the more confounding question remaining is "what was so different about the report from The Guardian".
I think timing. The world is finally ready to stop ignoring what Israel has been doing so it’s significantly easier for countries, companies, and even individuals to stand up, speak out, and take action.
I think it's the latter -- Microsoft was unable to look internally, or able to pretend they were ignorant. But the Guardian report was just too detailed to ignore.
> … pushes out buggy software as production-ready and that we're all their beta testers is a pretty common …
this is such a pet peeve of mine lately. companies are doing this all over the map now, from cars (especially self-driving), games, network equipment, entire software suites… and on and on.
i absolutely did not opt in to be a beta tester as a random human on public ways. i did not opt in to be a beta tester for your search engine results. i did not opt in to be a beta tester for the games i spend $90+ on. i did not opt in to beta test your company’s network equipment which we paid full price for.
build and closed test your products with interested parties who explicitly opt-in and quit forcing and charging us to be experiments in your company’s r&d.
In my experience they got a lot better in the last 2-3 years with reliability and polish. I never really had any problems prior to that myself, but I know they definitely did used to have a much more deserved reputation for buggy releases.
I bought a UDM about two years ago, and it was a real mess for about 6 months. It was hanging every few weeks which required a hard reboot- which was shocking, because this was my first attempt at upgrading my network to more expensive and capable stuff, and for the previous 20 years, had never had an issue with my network equipment hanging or rebooting. They were going to RMA my UDM, but then they had me install a special release as a last try, and it worked, and everything has worked well since then.
That said though, do I really need these features? The biggest draw was having a proper AP to put on my ceiling instead of my old google wifi pucks. The upgrade from wifi 5 to 6e was not noticeable in any way. I spent 3x the money and really have nothing tangible to show for it aside from a cool UI to log into, which was never necessary prior because everything Just Worked.
Also- this may be my fault for not reading the fine print, but the IDS stuff on the UDM only works at 600mbps, and I have a gigabit connection. People in Unifi forums will tell me I am the idiot for assuming that, but it has gigabit ports, its 2023... I just ass/u/me/d that everything would work without issue at line speed and wouldn't have to read the spec sheet like a lawyer.
Anyway, its fine in the end. I would never buy anything cutting edge from them again, I want anything to bake for at least 6 months after release, which is usually how long it takes for their "shipping" stuff to become actually available anyway. I will stop whining now :)
You're correct, but the running gag is that every version released as production is a beta.
It's been awhile since I used Unifi, but regardless of the label they put on their binaries, things felt like beta. That doesn't mean I had issues per se, or things I couldn't work around. But it may be missing things, almost certainly missing promised features, rough around the edges, etc.
Yeah, I'm not super happy with their release process. That's why I look at the forums before I update. And I don't update very often, probably 1-2 a year.
A neighbor has a bunch of Unifi devices and he just has his on autoupdate and never has issues. I definitely am scared to give them that much control.
Same, never had an issue. And I also skip the latest couple of minor versions most of the time unless there’s a security bugfix. Gives the updates time to bake.
When the rich and powerful face zero consequences for breaking laws and ignoring the social contracts that keep our society functioning, you wind up with extreme overcorrections. See Luigi.
How extreme is that, really? Not to justify murder: that is clearly bad. But "killing one man" is evidently something we, as a society, consider an "acceptable side-effect" when a corporation does it -- hell, you can kill thousands and get away scot-free if you're big enough.
Luigi was peanuts in comparison.
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
