It's insane to me how you can defend Russian imperialism while criticizing American imperialism in the same sentence. Moscow invaded Ukraine twice in the last 15 years. So yes the current Russian regime is an enemy to Ukraine, Europe and the US. Russia is a master in playing the victim and blaming its internal problems on external forces. Putins crying about NATO expansion and foreign agents manipulating the population was basically just projection because that is what Russia has been doing since the times of the Sowjet Union.
Regarding USAID: During researching topics in health care the research was often funded by USAID and these topics were definitely interesting and good and allowed smaller startups to exist. So this funding did a lot of good and created technology and research jobs in the US that are probably gone now.
If there are actually people out there walking around thinking that just getting the trains running on time justified the murder of 6 million ‘undesirables’ or many different shades, and this isn’t just some epic troll, then we are way more cooked than I had dared believe. And I don’t think you can hand wave away such large and obtuse generalisations by saying ‘Poe’s Law applies’.
Arguing on the internet has always been a fool’s game, and there have always been people who have made sport of it for the lolz, but honestly, why even entertain such vacuous opinions for outrage’s sake on a forum like this?
This isn't marketing this is just how the media decided to spin this story. Saying "Apple was caught off guard" makes the story more engaging than just saying Mac minis are sold out for 4 - 12 weeks after launch.
We don't know if Apple misjudged the demand or couldn't source enough parts to match the initial demand. Another explanation could be that they decided it wasn't worth it to increase the production capacity to match the higher demand at launch because that capacity would go unused later down the line.
> Only when threatened and self-defense has to be proportionate. If someone attacks you with a knife you would not be allowed to defend yourself with a firearm if you had one.
Being attacked with a knife means your life is being threatened and using a firearm would be legal even in Germany. The response has to be proportionate to the threat on life or limb not the size of the weapon.
Your are not arguing against the parent comment, right?
Because when somebody attacks you with a knife, drawing a gun oftentimes will not even be an effective defense. But if that is all that's available to you, it's only reasonable to give it a try. You should shoot multiple times or empty the whole magazine though and yes, that's generally justified by the law if that's what it takes to stop the attack.
The exact thing has happened to police man and woman and yes, they get trained to shoot multiple times to defend themselves. Was an outcry in media a few times because people don't understand the situation those people were put into.
I'm saying that when you use a gun against an attacker with a knife you will end up before a judge as the defendant and not as the victim. The court will decide if using the gun in this specific case was necessary (notwendig) and appropriate (geboten). Only if it was both will you go unpunished.
> The response has to be proportionate to the threat
No, not even that, at least not in general. For example, it could be well within your rights to hit somebody who keeps insulting you.
And yes, not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.
Wikipedia mentions more example of what you are generally allowed to protect:
> Das unberechtigte Anfertigen einer Fotoaufnahme stellt einen Angriff auf das Recht am eigenen Bild dar.[10] Das Anrauchen einer Person kann einen Angriff auf deren Ehre und Gesundheit darstellen.
Translation:
> Taking a photograph without authorization constitutes an infringement of the right to one's own image.[10] Exposed to secondhand smoke can constitute an infringement of a person's honor and health.
Will be easy enough to find more example if your are not satisfied with Wikipedia.
Yes, find an example that proofs that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws.", as you claim.
Neither of your sources supports "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.". If you had linked the original sources, it would have been obvious that the examples are taken out of context.
> Bereits der Diebstahl mittelwertiger Gegenstände darf nach herrschender Meinung jedoch auch mit einer tödlichen Abwehrhandlung vereitelt werden, sollten mildere Mittel (wie Warnschüsse oder Schüsse auf die Beine) nicht zum Erfolg geführt haben bzw. nicht zur Verfügung stehen.[73][55][56]
> However, according to prevailing opinion, even the theft of items of moderate value may be thwarted by lethal self-defense if less severe measures (such as warning shots or shots aimed at the legs) have failed or are not available.[73][55][56]
He was also hit by the six year olds, but the court explicitly mentions the attack on his honor as well as foundation for their judgement.
Slapping the child was deemed to be the mildest mean for defence and therefore lawful.
Just to iterate on the first point, even theft of values starting as low as 100 Euro could justify lethal force. Knowing that honor is a protected right, it should not be surprising that hitting somebody can be justified when one get heavily and continuously insulted.
Your claims were that "not getting insulted is a protected right in Germany that you generally lawfully defendable under the "Notwehr" laws." and that "you may hit someone who keeps insulting you.".
Not sure what you mean, I provided sources and examples for both.
More sources:
> Mithin kann das Recht auf Notwehr grundsätzlich auch bei einer Beleidigung greifen und nicht etwa nur bei einer Körperverletzung oder Ähnlichem.
> Consequently, the right to self-defense can, in principle, also apply in the case of an insult, and not just in cases of bodily injury or similar offenses.
Yes, the specific sentence you quoted was too hand waiving, not every insult can result in lawful self defence, but generally, defending against insults can be lawful.
Similarly, not everything somebody writes is protected by copyright, but generally what somebody writes can be protected by copyright.
Having access doesn't mean you are allowed to access something. Let's say I started working at a new company and notice I can still access the source code at my old company. This doesn't mean I am allowed to download it and give it to my new employer even if we just use it as a reference.
At least with Samsung TVs you can block them from accessing the internet after setting up the TV. Just use an Apple TV or Chromecast device after that.
I have an LG G5. I don't remember if I needed internet access to set it up, but currently I keep it offline and just use an Nvidia Shield (which is better anyway). No ACR, tracking, ads, ... in the TV itself.
By doing this you basically get a subsidized TV without paying with your data :D
At least from some smaller marketing companies I know that isn't necessarily true. They often have Gemini or Copilot and Claude nowadays and before Claude it was ChatGPT.
The moat is way smaller than with Office or Gsuite because they feed data into the chat interface and it gives them an answer. The moat for Gsuite and Office is higher because you have to move all your data and reorganize it. Oh and everyone has to learn how to use the new software clients.
reply