- 0 Posts
- 11 Comments
24·5 months agoThey both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can’t really claim that the government isn’t representative.
Just because it didn’t represent YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.
184·5 months agoBecause a Nation (and I know this sounds crazy) is not a person. You can do many things a country can’t and vice versa.
For example, you can make a rule that in your house black people do not get sweet foods. It’s a dick move but not illegal. A country is not allowed to make a law that says black people can’t eat sweet foods, because that would be racist discrimination (which is illegal for the government to do in most countries).
Another example: You can poop (like you did when posting that question). A country does not have a digestive tract and in fact does not eat and can therefore not poop.
Shit or get off the pot.
There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc
- NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
- Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
- It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
- It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.
So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?
Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.
Where is the issue?
2·10 months agoYes. And that’s worse.
I love “yeet cap rn”.
Matlab exists for Linux and is the same as on Windows. LibreOffice is a fully functioning office suit for Linux.
I can’t speak to SOLIDWORKS, their website only lists a windows version. There is however some community work being done here https://github.com/cryinkfly/SOLIDWORKS-for-Linux And it looks like they have it running.
Given that Fedora and Ubuntu are listed on that github, you should probably start with either one of those.
For a complete beginner I’d recommend Ubuntu, since it’s a solid distro with huge wealth on online support available.
0·1 year agoIt depends. If you are the owner of a repository with multiple contributors and have rules for code review, then this makes sense. You create the PR so that someone else can say “Yep, meets our standards/tests/release schedule”.
But if you start doing stuff like this regularly you probably want to migrate the repository to a dedicated account that exists to own that repository, rather than it be your own.
The general horrificness of this aside. How do you recruit participants for a study like this? “Do you want to be pregnant but don’t mind having an abortion? Would you like an abortion but don’t mind if you actually get it reversed?”