Yes, that's the bad reason I've been repeatedly debunking over all the flaws inherent to it and that you're somehow entrenched in thinking is a good point?
Look just... stop trying to assert that you know what you're talking about. You're so bad at this that you've pivoted to arguing that an indirect representative democracy is in itself a reasonable and sufficient check on authoritarian power. That's a joke - or the punchline to several jokes, really - and it's antithetical to everything to do with communism and/or socialism. Just... come on.
(And dude you've brought Xi into this when I was never talking about China - I get you like them real hard but I'm not discussing them?)
I'm just guessing, but I'm betting they were either trying to make a custom-fit buttplug or really liked the fantasy of being sealed up and figured it'd work loose like superglue does.
Edit: this paper is pure gold, highly recommend looking it up. The photos of the removed epoxy are eyewatering, yet oddly enchanting...
A 27-year-old unemployed young man presented with lower abdominal discomfort following injection of a liquid adhesive per rectum 5 hours previously. He injected the viscous liquids into his rectum via a dual-chambered glue gun, resulting in an instantaneous exothermic reaction that caused the mixture to solidify and become fixed internally. He had no previous history of bowel disorder or psychiatric disturbance. The patient admitted he had done this for anal erotic enjoyment
In my experience: Win 10 LTSC was really quite nice (for windows), win10 pro was okay after a bit of work, win10 home was a burning pile of sweaty diapers.
Your entire argument hinges on it just not being necessary, but you've never provided a reason beyond "well what if they're doing a good job"? You've a great case for why we do need a variety of structures to check one person obtaining too much power, but you're arguing against term limits because "what if one person happens to be really good at their job?"
You're not engaging with the answer here, which has been repeatedly given (arguably by marx) but I'll happily reiterate it in more plain language: "no one person is so good at their job that they should be unwilling to step down from power". Nobody is so unique that an equally competent person cannot be found - but many people are so corrupt that they will remain in power as long as possible unless there are hard checks to prevent them from doing so.
Even countries that have term limits don't give all the power to whoever is in charge.
Yes? Term limits are a tool for ensuring those structures, they're not the only tool available nor are they the only one in use, and nobody is saying they are. I'm totally at a loss as to why you're arguing against them when you've made such a good summary of what they are and have highlighted the importance of such structures within a government system.
Yes what is? Repeating the same comment doesn't make it suddenly say something different, and it still doesn't address the part where it's a safeguard for a non-ideal situation.
... This is the problem with the apple ecosystem, though? It isn't a problem unique to the apple ecosystem (though apple is the worst about tying features and services into a single ID) but you realize you're doing a whattaboutism in defense of a megacorp right?
The topic here is apple, not google or M$ or samsung or etc, hence why I'm not discussing them. It doesn't devalue the other companies and their contributions to shitty business practices to not bring them up in every discussion about shitty business practices.
What? But... you didn't say that. That's not what you said at all. That's why I didn't address it, because you didn't say it. I addressed what you said.
In a ideal situation this sort of failsafe wouldn't be needed - but your line is "The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power". What if, just suppose, the people putting that person into power aren't the proletariat? A totally wild hypothetical here I know, when would something like THAT ever happen. But those people, by your hypothetical would then be the ones with the power to go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
Yes, that's the bad reason I've been repeatedly debunking over all the flaws inherent to it and that you're somehow entrenched in thinking is a good point?
Look just... stop trying to assert that you know what you're talking about. You're so bad at this that you've pivoted to arguing that an indirect representative democracy is in itself a reasonable and sufficient check on authoritarian power. That's a joke - or the punchline to several jokes, really - and it's antithetical to everything to do with communism and/or socialism. Just... come on.
(And dude you've brought Xi into this when I was never talking about China - I get you like them real hard but I'm not discussing them?)