11–20 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
I'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the fo…
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the fo…
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization.
If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes.
In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
"I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say.
I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
No more corrupt than the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
a bit of context - the network of Navalny's organizations "The fund to fight corruption" has been officially designated as an extremist organization, and any association with it after such a designation is a crime, and Navalny is facing additional charges for creating an extremist organization. (The organization supposedly acted against foundations of Russian state, and there is no joke lost that corruption is the fo…
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
No, that's mostly it. Along with an enjoyment of power and control and the suffering of others for its own sake.
He's built a multi billion dollar palace, he's not going to risk losing power.