Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.

If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.

Ask yourself why.

Don’t believe me? Google is your friend.

You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.

But they don’t. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.

This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them

Do not support these companies.

Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan

Regular GTX 1080 here. Running Space Marine 2 at 60 fps on 1080p on mid-ish settings. And that’s basically the most graphics-intensive games I’ve played recently. Games like Total Warhammer 3, Dark Deity 2, Factorio or Heroes of the Storm don’t care about the GPU and play great at 1080p.

Speaking of, what is the next best cost-efficient GOAT in the generations that followed the GTX 10 series? I’m gonna be needing a new GOAT at some point in the future - would love to hear recommendations.

deleted by creator

External self-determination cares little about national laws. That’s kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don’t recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any “no backsies” rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven’t been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.

So was Hitler. Thing is, natural law and positive law can diverge significantly, meaning ctitizens will sometimes have to organize against the products of positive law to preserve their decency and freedom.

Great read, thank you for sharing.

You need to drink your meds, grandpa.

At least prove a point.

Oh, I think you’re doing just fine on that front. (And let’s not pretend like “proof” or “evidence” have any relevance when making claims that not only have no basis in reality, like “conservatives don’t talk about crypto”, but obviously seek to supplant it).

But again, you’d be much more effective if you dress up facts rather than fiction. You also need to build up to the absurd, not start with it. You can’t just convince people that reality is actually the opposite of what is perceived. You first need to shake up trust in consensus based reality and basic scientific knowledge, and only then start to gradually inteoduce the spectacle in a piecemeal fashion.

I mean, if you’re gonna engage in disinformation then at least read the wikipedia page on whatever topic you are targetting so you can come up with something that’s more believable. Disinfo is most effective when it is based on some true information taken out of context.

I don’t want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.

Not to worry, you’re simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don’t want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.

There’s a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.

Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.

If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don’t want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.

Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.

Holding those in power accountable is a continuous process. It doesn’t just happen on a specific day or another. Politically active and concious people protest and raise awareness in an ongoing manner regardless of who is in power. The world didn’t end on 5 Nov 2024 or 20 Jan 2025 - fighting for democracy will never stop.

You would know this if you actually put your money where your mouth is, as it were.

Yo, did they change the photo? I’m only seeing it in the thembnail