When Democrat politicians/appointees/whatever "give up", its sad and disgusting because there's usually no real rea$on to.
When Magats do it, its friggen hillarious, because their goals are both stupid and ea$y, but they failed to consult their sponsors and are just incompetent in general.
Blame antonim for correcting the one who said "Least racist European". Led me to distill/refine that down to painful and unavoidable truth.
As much as I hate interacting with the British in general, "this image" is a better reason than most. What, did you think I was pretending to be a good person?
Kind of shit that comes to mind when a Brittish person calls me and mine backwards. Like come-on you wanker, you don't even pretend to have Traveller friends - there are NRA gun ranges and Biker Bars that wouldn't welcome you.
"least racist european descendant"
Most of the rest of us at try to at least pretend(or acknowlege) to have native or slave blood, black cousins, or what-not.
So yeah, while you're maybe technically correct, the vast majority of "Europeans" ranting about their genetic heritage aren't in Europe, and America doesn't have anything like a monopoly on this shit.
The way things are going, it may be time to label Brittain a backwards, failed European colony for shits n giggles though.
... but its not? Literally, the "harder" part about making a bomb with reactor-grade material is keeping it from blowing-up prematurely, while still getting maximum yeild at boom-boom time.
A less-advanced nation might get a lesser explosion out of a "safer"(doesn't explode until its supposed to) bomb with reactor-grade material, but its still going to be a massive, nuclear explosion, and the unspent fuel creates additional radio-active fallout.
Apparently, civilized-countries' worst nightmare regarding weapons-grade plutonium is that those that "shouldn't" have "the bomb" could build them and then be able to shelve them for a later, legitimate threat. Oh, and not being able to cry "they built a dirty bomb!!" if such were ever used.
Apparently, the opposite is the case. Funny story, when making a bomb, blowing up during construction, storage, or delivery to the target is an un-desirable trait.
At some point, even a willing merchant should offer lower per-item payouts.
"I like you enough to go x over wholesale" only goes so far, and yeah, damn near everyone has an absolute limit on what they would expect to be able to offload in the next century. Likely a much lower limit than you would expet. Repeatedly selling the same thing should eventually invoke "I'll take one or two this time, but for the rest, you should probably visit x, who I sold that last truckload too, or x, who I had to PAY to haul it away. You now owe me money, btw."
Indeed, and trusting the US to protect allies from invasion was a bad call. The leap from "perhaps US allies should up their defense spending to what it should have been all along, plus a temporary bonus to catch-up/modernize" to "pre-emptive attack and iron-domes for everyone should be on the table" is both eroneous and wasteful.
Don't encourage countries to bankrupt themselves buying solutions that are sold mostly by the US - thats exacly what my government would love best to enrich defense contractors and justify continued record spending, plus more meddling, I promise.
"Treat x as an attack that requires immediate action, you can't afford to make rational long-term decisions today" is the hook-line-and-sinker CIA/fascist narrative, always has been.
Subs are so bad now that I leave them on with dubs for comedic effect. Helps me rope in family-members to watching with me.
On the other hand, I can no longer trust them enough to just keep watching while others in the room have loud conversations, unless I want to switch to the original audio, which annoys them.
You've got it backwards. Weapons-grade is more stable. Less stability is fine for reactors, because they are designed to manage the reaction on an on-going basis and not, in general, blow up.
That's what we've been trying to tell the world about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and even Cuba. That last one's strategically debatable, but for the rest "we should treat it as an attack" was a lie then.
Its no more or less of a lie now. Encouraging other countries to embrace reactionary foreign policy is no more of a good idea than following the US' lead on the matter.
If you or I can be held responsible for such activities from our homes, why give google an exemption?
It would depend on jurisdiction of course, many of us live places that will give us(with help of a lawyer...) a bit of an out for guest wifi or TOR exit nodes, but ultimately, you know google is going to settle for little more(or less) than it would have cost them to buy these works at retail, whereas you or I would also get slapped with thousands of dollars extra(per item?) in fines and legal fees.
They can afford to pay for the porn, but they chose to go the "we shouldn't have to because its smut" route, and not bother trying to say their employees are responsible for downloading random books/movies/whatever for personal use. Do they get to use this out for CP?
Also, unlike you or I, they have logging in place, such that they know which employees did what. Not saying they should name-and-shame, but they could(and should) easilly eat the cost and pass it through to those employees, whether it also comes with HR disciplinary action ornot.
There are literally ICQ-compatible apps for android, as well as any of those other services which have bothered to keep their servers running. Mobile devices add nothing to server requirements.
When Democrat politicians/appointees/whatever "give up", its sad and disgusting because there's usually no real rea$on to.
When Magats do it, its friggen hillarious, because their goals are both stupid and ea$y, but they failed to consult their sponsors and are just incompetent in general.