Apparently only when china does it. Imagine the hypocritical hysteria if this was about the chinese government. Not just from the social media propagandists but also our elected leaders - many of them in congress supporting this "aid".
The internet was a government project. Silicon Valley is a government creation. The internet nor silicon valley exists without government funding. Government investment can be a good thing as long as they allow space for the private sector.
The EU should also look into subsidizing their tech stack ( hardware and software ) like they did with Airbus. Hopefully india will follow soon after and eventually ASEAN and africa. The more competition and diversity of options, the better.
> The area they ruled (from England to Syria and Egypt) had never been under a unified rule before the Romans.
To be fair, you can say that about almost every empire - mongol, greek, british, ottoman, persian, babylonian, etc. I doubt the mongol empire stretching from vietnam to korea and moscow to baghdad will ever be unified under a single empire.
> If you consider how many different countries and cultures occupy that space today
To be fair, most of the countries and cultures that occupy that space today weren't ruled by the romans. Rome never ruled england as england came into existence after the anglo-saxons conquered roman britannia. As for syria and egypt, the romans never ruled the arabs who dominate the region.
> it really puts the magnitude of their empire into perspective.
Rather than the magnitude, I think the legacy of the roman empire is what separates it from others.
> and letting private companies suppress speech, which is what happens in America.
Considering that private companies are now becoming more powerful than many governments/countries, maybe this is something we should take another look at.
> When the government does it, you can't express that idea anywhere.
Can't you argue that you can always move to another country, just like you can use another company?
> When private companies do it, you can still express those ideas somewhere else.
Depends on the private company and its scale/monopolistic position.
> Global installed PV capacity has more than doubled since 2016, and now accounts for 3% of total electricity consumption.
3% is nothing. You are proving my point but you are too blinded by agenda that you can't even see it. Wow, a whole 3%, quite the "disruption".
Also, you are conveniently ignoring non-electric energy use - cars, boats, planes, etc. Which would drop that % to less than 1% of total energy supply.
> You seem to be another person who doesn't understand how exponential growth works.
No I do. That's why you can't fool me with nonsense. Usually it's the people who don't know math or stats who are easily duped.
> Ultimately, to legitimately gaslight you, your cognitive failure is to assume that things can't change quickly
No. I showed you how things can change quickly. Natural gas. Now that is something that actually caused disruption. Feel free to look at the chart I provided.
> and that your prejudices from a few years ago remain valid, even as the facts that underpinned them have vanished.
You really think I'm prejudiced against solar? I'm prejudiced against lies and mindless zealotry. That must be why solar is a non-factor in energy ( electricity or as fuel or as anything ).
No sane person could say solar has been "disruptive". At least if they knew what the hell they were talking about. But obviously, with your 3%, you haven't a clue.
"English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."
I can only copy and paste the full context so many times...
> So you either misunderstand what Germanic is, or you're choosing to read the author's sentence substituting "Germanic" for German, or you're being deliberately hostile.
No you are being intentionally obtuse. You knew fully what the author meant but you intentionally cherrypicked one sentence and misrepresented his entire point.
The author CLEARLY stated :
"English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."
> ... Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, socrates is mortal... but not all men are socrates.
You might want to look up what a syllogism is.
The easiest way to end your nonsense. Lets end it once and for all. So you are claiming that the author is saying that english came from the modern german language right?
"English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."
To you, the author is saying english came from the modern german language with the statements above? Of course not. You are so full of shit, I don't know why you keep pushing your nonsense. Of course you won't answer but go off on a tangent. People can see through your nonsense. Have a nice day.
And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to predict the future?
> Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now.
It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground. Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't posted any sources right? So you should be thanking me for using 2016 data because solar has taken a beating since 2016.
> PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.
5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.
Solar was a nonfactor in 2016. Solar is a nonfactor today. Solar will be a nonfactor in the future. Mindless zealotry won't change the facts on the ground.
"Full context: "English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."
> Did you even read what I wrote?
Yes, I even responded on a point by point basis. Did you read what I wrote?
> German and English started from a common ancestor yes
It is clear the author was talking about german as in germanic. Hence why he referred to old english and anglo-saxon. Nobody is saying that english came from the modern german language.
You sneakily copied one sentence out of context to argue nonsense - that the author claimed english came from modern german. You built up a silly straw man and you got called out.
Once again. The author wasn't claiming the modern english language came from modern german. But the language that english descended from was german. Just like the anglo-saxon people were german. As in germanic. Okay?
Full context: "English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."
> Can we not do better than this?
Can you just stop copying and pasting things out of context?
> But this is like saying that "Spanish started out as French" or "Romanian started out as Italian"
It's more like saying spanish started as latin given the context.
> English is descendended from the Anglo-Saxon dialects
> Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this reduction in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in efficiency (although that helps).
Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing.
> and in other ways the manifestations of lobotomy and morphine are similar enough to lead some researchers to describe the action of morphine (and some barbiturates) as ‘reversible pharmacological leucotomy [lobotomy]’.
Interesting. Wonder if they did brain scans on people taking morphine to see if the same areas were affected. If so, couldn't we narrow "mindfulness of pain" to that section of the brain?
> In this case it was simply a copy paste error which they pointed out.
Right and life went on before you decided to play "hero".
> They apologized because they were being civil and polite not out of some admission of guilt.
But you told him not to apologize. So that means you told him not to be civil? Also, it's not polite to speak for others as it isn't part of civil discourse.
> I think you can see what others thought of your tone as well.
Others? Just you. And it's rather childish to "appeal to downvotes".
> Both of your comments here come across as very angry.
"Yeah, no."
Listen, the only one causing drama here is you. I made one innocuous and helpful comment. The guy responded and everything was settled. The conversation had nothing to do with you and yet here you are.
"...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that bishop."
Sympathy implies justification. Also, I clearly explained what caused the bishop's inquisition.
Lets switch it up. Imagine after reading mein kampf or a biography on hitler, nkoren wrote the following.
"...this is probably not politically correct to say, but I did develop some sympathy for that fuhrer."
I bet I wouldn't have gotten flagged and mass downvoted. nkoren's pathetic post is just carefully repackaged white supremacy/white man's burden. I'm surprised nkoren didn't come back with "it was cultural genocide not real genocide". There are a handful oft-repeated racist genocide denial.
> What fulfillment in life would one have if many productive and/or desierable tasks were reserved for the young?
What productive activity is she going to do with her PhD at the age of 66? It's a selfish egotistical vanity project.
> Wouldn't it make the later years even harder for them?
"Mate" did you read what I wrote?
"I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?"
I'm all for the elderly learning and doing what they want. My problem is when their vanity project hurts younger people. A person with a PhD at 26 has a lot more to contribute than an old person with a PhD at 66. Not only that, the old person getting the PhD at 66 is taking a spot from a 26 year old. That is all.
I know the average age here is like 70, so I'm sure people will get upset about it. But from a practical and fairness perspective, I think it's better to let a 26 year old get the PhD and not the 66 year old. Let the 66 year old learn in an "off-credentialed" basis.
How about this, you have one slot open in your PhD program. You have equally qualified 26 and 66 year old. Which do you give that spot to? Most sane people would give it to the 26 year old.
Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials?
I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?
The internet was a government project. Silicon Valley is a government creation. The internet nor silicon valley exists without government funding. Government investment can be a good thing as long as they allow space for the private sector.
The EU should also look into subsidizing their tech stack ( hardware and software ) like they did with Airbus. Hopefully india will follow soon after and eventually ASEAN and africa. The more competition and diversity of options, the better.