zloubida
@zloubida@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Work smarter, not harder 1 week ago:
And Tandy Leather still exists! It’s in better shape than Tandy Electronics (which is called RadioShack now, the bought ate the buyer).
- Comment on Work smarter, not harder 1 week ago:
RadioShack is a subsidiary of Tandy. It was not created by Tandy, but bought in the 60s.
- Comment on Orion Browser 1 week ago:
Falkon stopped useing QTWebKit a few years ago. Now it’s just an other Chromium-based browser.
- Comment on If cannibalism were the norm and human meat was freely available in grocery stores, there would surely be people who prefered to eat only the meat of people of their own ethnicity or only women's meat 1 week ago:
And white and yellow chicken
- Comment on Episode Discussion | Star Trek: Starfleet Academy | 1x04 "Vox in Excelso" 1 week ago:
If they’re going to throwing regulations and laws around, doesn’t the actual Prime Directive exist anymore?
Caleb explicitly mentions the Prime Directive, stating that it doesn’t apply here, but without explaining why not. I always understood that this directive applies only to pre-warp societies, which the Klingon society is not, but I may be wrong.
- Comment on Gail the snail? 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on It's barely a science. 2 weeks ago:
Indeed. But the sense of these words changed since they were adopted. Originally they just meant “teacher of general studies”.
- Comment on It's barely a science. 2 weeks ago:
I always considered economics, philosophy and theology as (important) academic subjects which are not sciences.
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
I put no maybes. I put mainlies. Do you understand the difference?
It’s easy to take a sentence without context and making it say something else, but it’s a bad faith argument. You only discussed in bad faith until now.
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
I counted, I say 5 times “mainly” or a variation of “mainly” in our discussion and I wrote one ambiguous (if taken out of context) sentence. You’re trying to save face at this point.
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
Show me where I said that European governments owned no US debt, please. I said that it was mostly owned by private agents. The keyword here is mostly. Mainly. For the greatest part. Predominantly. Don’t change the terms of the discussion now that you feel cornered.
Of course the UK, Luxembourg, France or Ireland own US bonds. But what is owned by European countries is largely dwarfed by what’s owned in European countries. Not a word in the Congress’s document contradict that, and I provided a source that you conveniently ignored.
So if the European countries sold what they own directly, the effect would be weak. For this idea to work, they’d have to make private agents cooperate, and I don’t think they can.
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
As you can see from the actual beginning of the paragraph rather than picking out the words you like at the end.
The beginning of the paragraph changes nothing. Two different sentences can have two different meaning; the text says “in the US and abroad”.
As I’ve already posted and mentioned right at the start of the pdf
Again that’s a worldwide average. It’s not equally distributed. Prove me wrong instead of repeating your error.
there are plenty of European nations in there.
Again, this table mixes public and private investor and is then irrelevant. Prove me wrong instead of repeating your error.
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
Again, your table doesn’t differentiate public and private ownership. You obviously don’t understand the numbers you’re sending. Citing page 1 of your own link:
Investors in the United States and abroad include official institutions, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and foreign central banks; financial institutions, such as commercial banks; and private individual investors.
Both financial institutions and individual investors are private. So your link is totally irrelevant to our discussion (as you would know if you had read it). Yes, for example Luxembourg holds $423.9 billions, but do tou actually think the Luxembourgian state owns it? Of course not! Luxembourg is a trading place where a lot of holdings are based. These holdings hold the far biggest part of those billions. It’s the same with the UK (the London City is another trading place with a lot of holdings). And most of European countries.
As far as I know, the US Treasury doesn’t communicate on this, so we don’t have strict numbers. But it’s a well-known thing, as stated the Financial Times recently:
But this doesn’t change the fact that most of these assets are not actually owned by European governments (the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund being the only notable exception). These stocks and bonds are actually overwhelmingly held by the private sector: thousands of insurance companies, pension plans, banks and other institutional investors, and millions of ordinary people.
I’d love for Europe to have this kind of power, but we simply don’t have it (we have others however, like the “commercial bazooka”).
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
Ok except you’re completely wrong. Governmental investments in US are mainly made by countries outside Europe, like China. The only European exception is Norway, which alone can’t do much (and is not in the EU).
- Comment on YSK: Europe Can Wreak HAVOC On America Without Firing a Bullet. 3 weeks ago:
No, unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. “Europe” doesn’t owns a lot of US bonds; private investors from Europe own them. There’s no way to compel them to sell them.
- Comment on Does anyone else feel like "analog" stuff is more "tangible"? 3 weeks ago:
I love typewriters. When I write with them, I write differently than when I write with my computer. Just one example: if I write something i find shitty with my computer, I just delete it; if i do it with my typewriter, I have to physically strike the “bad” text. This has two consequences : I have to think more of what I’m writing, and if i finally change my mind the bad text is still there for me to work again or put somewhere else in my text. The “tangibleness” is important not only for conservation reasons.
But computers are better at sharing what in wrote, and polishing my texts. I like to scan and OCR-ize my pages and finishing the work on a computer. I don’t oppose analog and digital, but i find it sad that most people chose one (the digital generally) and reject the other. It’s like not using your left hand.
- Comment on atlas shrugged as jesus wept 3 weeks ago:
My tolerance ends the moment someone else is intolerant of me.
That’s legitimate. I’d say it’s even the only case where intolerance is legitimate.
Christians think I am going to hell and plenty of them would happily kill me if they thought they could get away with it. I won’t tolerate that.
Some think that, some would do that. And you’re 100% right not tolerating that. But none of that is inherent to Christianity.
- Comment on atlas shrugged as jesus wept 3 weeks ago:
you’re making up a definition of bigotry that fits your identity as a victim
I didn’t wrote this definition. It’s from a dictionary; check yours. Of as dictionaries stupid too?
You’re just upset because I think of your religion the same way you think about the religions that aren’t your particular flavour of stupidity.
No you don’t think of my religion the same way I think about others’. Contrary to you, I respect people I disagree with, and religions and schools of thought that aren’t mine. Most of my friends are atheists, one of my closest one is Muslim. Because I may be religious, but I’m not a bigot.
- Comment on atlas shrugged as jesus wept 3 weeks ago:
If you were born in an other country, an other time or just in your country and your time but in an other family, you’d probably have other religious views.
And even if it wasn’t the case, if you lose respect for people just because they made a stupid choice, you didn’t have a lot of respect for them from the beginning. Tolerance reserved for people agreeing with you is not tolerance, it’s agreement. It’s bigotry.
- Comment on atlas shrugged as jesus wept 3 weeks ago:
Bigot /bĭg′ət/, noun: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
- Comment on /c/fuckai in shambles rn 3 weeks ago:
Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature
An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature;
Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses,
Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses. - Submitted 4 weeks ago to 3dprinting@lemmy.world | 0 comments
- Comment on All the guilt none of the salvation 1 month ago:
The law is the entirety of the law. Paul doesn’t says that the law is not important; but it has nothing to do with salvation. There’s no guilt anymore.
- Comment on All the guilt none of the salvation 1 month ago:
That’s the original Christianity :
O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sin doesn’t have power upon us because the Law is not to be followed anymore thanks to Jesus.
- Comment on 102% 1 month ago:
What I say is that there is more than three variables. The three variables are already the result of addition if other variables rounded.
- Comment on 102% 1 month ago:
Unless 40.5, 56.5 and 3.5 are themselves additions of rounded numbers. It’s generally how that works.
- Comment on 102% 1 month ago:
Approve and disapprove are generally a collection of different possible response generally (for example strongly approve, approve, slightly approve) which all can be rounded. When you round the result of an addition of rounded numbers, the result can be slightly off, without changing the significance of the result.
- Comment on 102% 1 month ago:
It’s called rounding, and it’s quite common.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
I agree, I’m as much pro-abortion right as one can get, and yet I understand the fox’s reaction. He speaks about sin just one time, and his reaction would be understandable even without it. I imagine a man, in love with his wife and who would love to be a father, be renounced to this dream because his wife is sterile, and he chose her over his own desire to be a father. And one day she announces him that she’s pregnant and want an abortion… you can be in favour of this right, and still feel very bad.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
I’ll regret asking I’m sure but… which comics?
