Alaknár

What is the logic behind giving a company money for the tariffs?

Well, the logic is the fact that the tariffs were illegal.

The honourable thing to do would be to pay that money back to the customers, but that would make the shareholders sad and grumpy, so it’s never going to happen.

Again?

OK, there’s a MASSIVE gap between “illegal use of white phosphorus” and “chemical eradication”, like, dude, be real.

SNOW is a beast of a platform that requires a team of skilled engineers to set up properly. 90% of companies don’t hire those engineers and then do a surprisedPikachu.jpg when everything’s on fire.

But I did work at a company that had those engineers once, and I’m still in awe at how excellent that system can be.

1. If that’s your point, why did you write about the Sami people?
2. Source on “chemical eradication” in Lebanon, please. I searched for it but couldn’t find anything.

OK, now I get it.

Of course I heard about it. The “state sponsored Western propaganda” also very specifically mentioned that phrenology studies were shut down only in the 70s in Sweden, in case that would be your further attempt at a “gotcha”.

Why would you think that it’s some sort of secret?

I’m sorry, could you re-write that? I’m having trouble understanding what you meant.

This is an extremely bad take.

99% of Linux distros behave the same for the most part. There are outliers, like immutables, or NixOS, but whether you’re using Ubuntu, PopOS, Kubuntu, or Mint, your experience with the “linuxness” of your OS will be mostly identical. I’m not talking about things like “the DE looks different”, or the overall “look and feel”, I’m talking about software compatibility, driver compatibility, etc.

You could, I guess, argue if they should say “we’re testing a Debian based distro” instead of “Linux”, but that’s about it.

From your first link:

Among many other potential reasons, cultural genocide may be committed for religious motives (e.g., iconoclasm which is based on aniconism); as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing

This is covered by “intent to destroy (…) ethnical (…) group”.

From your second link:

The final prohibited act is the only prohibited act that does not lead to physical or biological destruction, but rather to the destruction of the group as a cultural and social unit

There will always be political legalese in play, when imperialist powers want to commit genocide, and so they’ll cling to the fact that “cultural genocide” is not specifically mentioned. But, in the case of Uyghurs, it’s a very clear-cut case of both ethnic cleansing and physical genocide (through forced sterilisation and displacement of children).

Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN

This is false.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Elements of the crime

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. (…) The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

Bold by me.

Unless the media wants to check up on the Uyghurs.