It wasn’t really Singapore-based; the Chinese company relocated to Singapore to circumvent the Chinese regulations on sales to the US, that’s why they put a stop to it

Even in the EU there isn’t really an alt store ecosystem apart from the epic game store

Chinese death sentences are usually imprisonment unless a new crime is commited, and generally reserved for corruption & other crimes where people nuke trust in public institutions for personal gain

Holy, and I thought “Vöedtæmhtëhactått” was bad

They’re nvidia, they don’t care if the shovels they’re selling won’t dig any gold

There are many more vegetal protein sources though, and if you really can’t bear those either just eat eggs

Nooo don’t let the Chinese subvention a total transition to clean energy!!1!!! 💀💀💀

Source on China “dumping”? All I see are unsupported accusations that are wholly explainable by the power the lobby of the automotive industry has

Lmfao at the pro capitalism crybabies in this thread

• Free market is superior
• We’re getting steamrolled by a planned economy

Pick one.

I’ve heard of and professionally used salesforce, and never heard of it referred as SFDC

Every single animator has been taking inspiration from everywhere all the time tbf

Could they not “just” use FPV drones with nades to take those flimsy radars out anyway? Instead of expensive ammunition. If it’s possible then it slashes down the price to take out these radars to a few thousands at most

lol, I thought they loved to use this symbol for political opponents?

I don’t know, I think it’s good to somewhat push people to confront their contradictions, and they won’t if they think the claim cannot be trusted. If the claim is made by some lib source they trust though? At least they would have to confront the facts and couldn’t dismiss them outright.

That is if they’re discussing (or just reading) in good faith

I think it’s important in public spaces especially, where the person you’re discussing with is not the only one reading the messages & people of varying political stances are around. In that context, a NYT article that is pro-china (could happen in some instances I’m sure, lol) will be far more impactful than an official statement from the PRC

Apologies accepted, and to be honest I’d rather have a tense argument than to be ignored, especially when it’s a good opportunity to learn 😁

Wishing you all the best

It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy”

Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.

I’m not sure people who want to shit on China will trust a gov.cn website, regardless of the content

After digging I’ll concede the point.

My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”

Edit: I was wrong

Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html

It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.

What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?

Well the pope just needs to not contradict their predecessors for this to hold. We’re (me included) snarking because Popes did materially support & call for wars, but (recorded) official statements have generally been anti-war.

Although funnily enough, unlike their roman counterpart, orthodox / coptic patriarchs always refused to call for holy wars, because:

• As a matter of principle it didn’t really fit
• Giving Christian support for wars made those wars (which were usually inevitable anyway) a Christian vs. non-Christian matter, meaning the church would die when it could survive under non-Christian management
• And Muslims invading the eastern roman empire tended to be pretty tolerant & the taxes imposed by Muslims (including the Jizya) sometimes were even lower than those they paid under byzantine rule
  • And they also really did not care about the canon of the catholic churches (coptic, orthodox, roman), meaning heretics who would be burned or need to reform in Christian lands could live normally under Muslim rule