221–230 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has been by far the largest funder of medical and other scientific research since WW2 which has benefited billions immensely.
Sure. Even more so the handful of patent holders in the US. Want to ignore those patents? Unless you have nukes you're not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WW2 was long enough ago that no one you end up talking about it actually experienced it themselves, but it's recent enough that people who felt their country did "Good", can still ride that high wave without being pulled down by everything that came after.
What? My grandmother experienced it herself, she saw bombings.
What I meant was that most people who discuss WW2 with others online, mostly talk from the perspective of not having experienced the war themselves, nor did the person who they speak to, most likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> against Saddam in the Gulf War I really hope you're referring to GW1, rather than 2. And yeah, if you weren't a Kurd who believed GW Bush, then that was a pretty effective war from the US (and global) perspective.
We won in Iraq 2 as well, and considering the fight against conventional Iraqi forces, they were quickly defeated.
Only if you ignore the rise of ISIS and various militias, along with the collapse of Iraqi society (mind you, the sanctions had done a pretty good job of wrecking that before GW2 anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.
Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral. I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single coun…
So I assume that if you open your borders to all fleeing citizens, that's neutral, and if you close it to all, that's neutral as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re deluded.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. As a non-Swiss, non-American, I can assure you you need to study both American and Swiss modern history. The Swiss were far, far too cozy with the Nazis, and the Americans have done a spectacular amount of good since WWII ended.
- Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Half of France was occupied for most of the war, after all. And enough people were collaborating.
- Would you say that the UK was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They considered not fighting against them in the beginning.
- Would you say that the US was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They didn't do anything for years, until Pearl Harbour, right?
I think it's always more complicated than just blaming an entire country.
I am not an expert in modern history, but my understanding is that Switzerland was entirely surrounded. I guess they did their best to avoid getting occupied? Certainly some assholes in Switzerland profited from the war, but that's true in many (most? all?) other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't a true Swiss person be neutral and cautious, and wouldn't they refrain from parroting all sorts of nonsense in public about other countries? Anyway, it doesn’t exactly seem like smart move when a government agency tasked with protecting its citizens’ sensitive information switches on a large scale from local, closed networks with energy-efficient desktop applications to externally hosted SaaS infrastructure,…
That’s a lot of misconceptions for one paragraph…
- They feel like the Swiss person above shouldn't say stuff like "the US were never friends". And... you know... they are entitled to their feelings, I guess?
- Switzerland should not have become dependent on BigTech (or any kind of external tech). Which goes in the direction of digital sovereignty.
> Do note that during the pilot phase, the new system runs in parallel with Microsoft 365 rather than replacing it outright. That's okay, I think. Well I think it's not ok without at least a fixed deadline for removal of MS365. People usually have work to do and learning new ways to get it done means extra work, and (almost) nobody takes upon extra work if they don't have to. So the new software will be largely ignor…
I guess that when you "test" something, it means that you have not yet decided that you will completely migrate there?
The real risk to MS here is when people take the plunge and see how much nicer a (well supported, well put together) Linux distro is, compared to Windows etc! Will they want to buy their next laptop at home with MSFT installed? Plus, if countries moving off Microsoft put a fraction of the savings into libre office product development, it might get an even more lopsided comparison!
Lifelong Linux/Unix user here, I love the widespread adoption of Linux. But comments like this one makes me think people don't realize what a MacGyvere'd together hack job a Linux distro truly is. The idea on paper is that a company like Microsoft can offer a more consistent and stable experience, but apparently they're even failing at that these days. But to look at a Linux distro as an alternative to consistency an…
I don't understand why. The vast majority of people doesn't have to know about the OS below: they run a handful of apps, that's it. You just need to get them to start those apps and learn to use them. It's not like government employees would have to compile their kernel...