Yeah, even in my excessively long reply to a one sentence comment I was skipping over a lot of information for brevity, and I’m not a historian. My point was only to illuminate that the US stance pre-WW2 involvement was not dissimilar to today’s - broadly the govt doesnt care that people suffer even to the point of genocide now nor then, as long as national interests (basically business and economy) are unimpeded.

Thanks for the added info.

I lay the blame at the IDF and their far-right Likud government who has openly said they will protect any IDF soldiers accused of war crimes.

I don’t wish to tar a whole country with the same brush.

USA was profiting quite nicely off Nazi Germany in World War 2 right up until the USA entered the war in 1941. Some historians argue there is nothing wrong with that. I think many would disagree.

The US government at the time was lobbied heavily by business and private citizens (including the Nazi Party of America) to stay neutral in the war, so they largely did just that right up until Pearl Harbour made it so they could not turn away. There were exceptions, eg: oil and metals used for creating ammunition were agreed not to be sold as part of the Allied Agreement with the UK (and others) and boats coming in and out were blockaded. But even that didn’t stop big fans of fascism, such as the Texaco CEO at the time whom supplied oil to the Nazis up until late 1940.

So, honestly I don’t think a lot has changed.

I guess the US government wasn’t directly funding WW2, but they also didn’t care one bit until it affected them directly - it was making their donors money. Paralleled today the US govt at large doesn’t care, and primarily funds Israel for two reasons: protecting their oil interests in the middle east (business donors and strategic benefits), and every dollar provided in the budget is actually a voucher to go buy some weapons or military equipment from a US firm - so again, its to cynically drive military-industrial investment (strategic) and protect their business donors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torkild_Rieber

Yeah, means Signal would just not have a presence eg an office or local routing/CDN servers in the countries that demand backdoors.

It would mean slower service for anyone in such countries, but the service would not stop working or become less secure.

It’s negative either way, as it chips away at the legitimacy of private E2E chat, and legislators the world over seemed determined not to learn that there’s no such think as “backdoors, but just for the good guys”. You either have a resilient end-to-end zero trust encrypted system or you don’t.

Yes, agreed. And calculators are essentially tabulators, and operate almost just like a skilled person using an abacus.

We shouldn’t really be surprised because we designed these machines and programs based on our own human experiences and prior solutions to problems. It’s still neat though.

People from Denmark also all learn English during school and have done since at least the 60s, which is why you found that only 15% of them can’t speak English. Over 50% of Danes correspond in English for their work and are confident they can read English news according to 2013 survey. The proportion of US Americans that can’t read AP News stories is honestly probably higher, with the US now at 21% illiteracy.

AP News may be primarily US-focused news source, but they are a global news organization. They sell their stories via syndication to hundreds of other news organizations and newspapers worldwide, in multiple languages, and have done for a very long time. To decide that all their articles are automatically for US audiences is just wrong.

Gaslighting is repeatedly presenting information that’s untrue to convince someone of an alternate reality. Literally not possible to do in a single message, and nothing I wrote is not factual.

I only tried to let you see how Americentrist your response to OOP was, and your subsequent response is to weaponise victimhood to dismiss any introspection. I will not waste further time.

This is a news article published in the ‘world news’ community of a worldwide Internet forum, from one of the oldest and most respected not-for-profit news agencies in the world, whom themselves published the article in their ‘world news’ section. It discusses Danish people’s overwhelmingly negative responses to the American president’s tariffs.

And you somehow make this into “ugh why to the liberal elite always only care about what the rest of the world thinks”.

Maybe, just maybe, this article wasn’t written nor shared solely for the demographic of USA voters?

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but boats splitting in half is not uncommon, as far as boat structural failures go it’s a relatively common one.

Stats on such a thing are unavailable but there are many news articles regarding boats splitting in half. I’d hope the safety factor on a fission reactor is several orders of magnitude higher than a seafaring vessel.

https://www.marineinsight.com/videos/why-do-ships-break-from-the-middle/

So, uh. What about Lemmy?

They can also crawl this publically-accessible social media source for their data sets.

I’m on board with abandoning mainstream social media, but my point is that your suggestion would not solve the problem just relocate it. A better solution to the AI conglomerates stealing everyone’s data from the open Internet is legislation and regulations - ie tackling the whole ‘stealing data’ component, along with stronger privacy regulations for everyone to make it harder for them to do the same in the future. It’s nice seeing the EU taking some positive steps, but we will not see the US take any steps in that direction anytime soon, due to corporate capture of their politicians and the AI companies all being in the top 10 most wealthy companies in the US.

Far right wing government, a president (PM in their case) that has multiple credible cases of corruption against him and is holding onto power desperately to try to avoid prosecution.

Sound familiar?