The comment section on this article is a little bit of hell.

Also, I get that this is part of Microsoft’s duties for its own OS security. But the role it has seems to be a bit too large. Currently it seems, even though it is seemingly working for the benefit of Ukraine in the conflict, that they could choose to aid Russia at any time. I don’t think I like them having such capacity. Being able to interfere in such events in such a drastic degree, if they choose to. Interference in politics in such a direct manner, even if aid with ‘intelligence’ is one of their offerings, cannot really be removed from their capability here. These are basics of state… just what are modern politicians doing. I’d say it is not so much the governments in specific places (like the US) running their regions anymore.

I don’t think China cares. Such places, the powers will sink down their entire region for ‘glory’.

This sounds like the family basically has given an ‘okay’ to the authorities doing whatever to him, however illegal it may be.

Can’t say I’m surprised, my family is similar. Not as well off financially, but similar.

Pretending like you care about the guy… how rotten can these people be.

Technicians (not limited to people working with computers) always have it hard when they work purely in support capacity. This is like draining then fir everything they’ve got and looking for an opportunity to beat them down further so they stay in their abused state.

If you already have a strong community which has brought about change, you do not need more. Merely continue to be a strong community and deal with problems which are bound to arise at a local level, and you will keep bringing about change. For example, even if the current generation is into good things, the next generation of your own always have the chance of calling you a bunch of fools for not exploiting the vulnerable; they will call themselves greater than you eho came before (a common trend; people like to fool themselves to seem less pathetic to themselves and, they hope, others). What you built is then destroyed from the inside.

When you force ‘change for good’, revolution or otherwise, you bring about the ‘perception of change’ rather than change itself. All the problems are actually swept under the carpet, out of sight. It just happens that is the very reason for a lot of the biggest problems in the world right now; even if all the visible people take on the banner of legitimacy and say there is no problem, there is no doubt among the people who have been pushed in the lower, oppressed corners of each region—out of sight—of the injustice and cruelty caused.

The end goal, if you want world peace, is the change in yourself, itself. You don’t need to go outside and make your place a ‘platform’ for change, because the world is not generous. They will, instead, definitely focus on destroying your ‘strong community’ than being open to the idea of change. Rather, the existence of such a community is enough to incite hatred.

If you use the mentioned ‘platform’ for change through co-operation, the wicked of the world will only see you as fools. Their methods have worked for them; causing pain for others for their own gain has led them to lead better lives, in their opinion. Each and every one of my own family is like this; they instead take every opportunity to co-operate as an opportunity to harm. The ‘neutrals’ who go along with the flow, getting them to your side is not a victory either. It just takes evil to be dominant again (and evil likes to try to dominate) and they switch sides all over again. The change is superficial. On the other hand, go the violent route, and you will find it quite impossible to not succumb to the idea of the necessary evil, and the lesser evil, to prevail. But when you do this, all you do is ‘sacrifice’ those who are even less powerless. You are not so much removing evil as much as replacing evil with another evil. There is a real tendency in such cases to do the same as the evil predecessors have done; but from the other side. You may have destroyed those ones in the process, but in the end you essentially joined their hand. It is a real sore topic for most because trolls also like to maliciously bring up this point, but did the revolutions of the world really end all problems completely, or did they sweep many problems out of sight to claim victory for many of the previously oppressed, essentially befoming opponents to the rest? Of course, the method I mentioned also aims at non co-operation, but it aims at ending the idea of having gains at the cost of someone. It keeps making it harder to do that till it becomes impossible; to survive, such evildoers are forced to do better then. At the very least, I can say with confidence that if you have enough of such people who do not have power over anyone while not letting people have power over them, it becomes impossible for such a place to start an invading war. Rather, starting war is usually a means to distract one from a place’s internal problems; instead they will be forced to deal with the same problems as they’re thrown in the faces of the people who cause them rather than pushing those problems out of sight so they can say they live good lives—and invade so they can distract themselves, when they have nothing better to do. In the end, instead of people saying how problems are impossible to be fixed, you have people actually solving problems because they also have a stake in it; they’re no longer able to push the problems they create on others and be done with it.

Instead of an ‘external’ problem, it is the ‘internal’ problem. Limiting yourself to making a strong community itself is the problem, whereas if you see yourselves as part of one world; after you bring about change in yourself, you continue living in a good way which forces other people to live in a good way if they want their problems to end. It literally speads like an infection till people cannot do evil anymore. The reason sustained world peace is impossible is because there will always be the next generations who will think themselves superior for exploiting the vulnerable, and there will always be places where people give up instead of following through with trying to be good; accepting the lesser evil at the cost of ‘a few’ instead. The grim reality that no one talks about is all the problems in the world, a very big portion, I’d even say most of it, is caused because we live in a world which has chosen a lesser evil over and over again. If people simply chose ‘no evil’ over ‘lesser evils’, the bigger evils would be stifled enough that they couldn’t run around free doing, essentially, whatever they want. The current big evils are, almost always, born out of the lesser evils of the past, rather. And the current suppressed are from the powerless who were on the wrong side—the cost of past ‘peace’—instead of the wealthy and the evildoers, like the ones choosing ‘lesser evil’ in the last claimed.

The natural result.

To think they actually gave one of the reasons of invading Ukraine as ‘fighting Nazis’

Once EVs become the main type of vehicles sold, sellers will lower quality to ‘encourage’ you to replace them more often.

Every industry starts off like this and ends off like that.

Counter-point: It depends on a decision made early in life. Whether that decision is influenced by observations or upbringing is irrelevant. As it stands, most people have not subconsciously chosen (follow it long enough and it becomes a non-absolute but pretty hard to break subconscious compulsion) to be this way.

As a kid, I had chosen this. I was treated like a person whose only purpose was to be taken advantage of, to be harmed for others’ gain, from all sides as a result. Then I made the other choice due to pressure. Then I saw that causing harm is not all good for yourself like people pretend it is, so I rejected it hard no matter the consequence. The result was people kept crossing the boundary of decency and even crime, but nobody cared because apparently I made that choice myself and it was only natural. If such things are not dealt with, only the few crazy ones will choose empathy for more than what brings one gain in some form… because it is simply not worth it. Rather you need to abandon the concept of worth to really choose this to the end.

It is not so much the brain being wired for not feeling empathy (I’d argue that the hunan body is instead inclined to live a life the opposite of cruel; to be compassionate instead), rather when the pain starts, and stays constant (for years), it remains hard to hold on. The problem arises in not knowing how to deal with these things. Learning from observation while not knowing anything is an incredibly inefficient and painful method that also leaves you vulnerable, and the malicious love to target the vulnerable ones most of all. It is extremely difficult to hold on to such a decision, and those who make such decisions half-heartedly only give up, usually.

On the other hand, choosing these things makes one more capable in life than most humans consider possible (in modern times at least) in many things. The benefits of being capable are usually attributed to being better suited at something innately, but there is a reason that most people who are considered extraordinary geniuses in their fields, apparently inhumanly talented, are also kind hearted.

More spiritualism will only take us further away from world peace. Because spiritualism is usually guided by a set of guidelines which a person ‘should’ follow, and are more or less absolute which little room for deviation. Being less reliant of what one does not make on their own may very well be a path to personally finding answers; but spiritualism is a horrible way to go about it if solving problems and resolving conflicts is the real goal.

This is because there won’t be only one form of spiritualism; like there are many currently, many more may pop up in the future. And when there is even a slight hint of peacefulness, each and every one of these subtly, usually passive aggressively get others to join them while simultaneously being extremely suspicious of the other groups doing the same. This is the best case, usually it just leads to ugly hatred, eventually.

An example of how it will take us away from world peace? As you put forth the reason yourself. People’s ‘sins’. That is very aggressive, passively. In the end, disagreement with a person’s already made conclusion of ‘sin’ can only lead to argument which does not solve any real purpose related to peace, and making such a conclusion only incites disagreement from many who are directly accused as well as those who aren’t but recognise how it is an action which will only destroy peace.

Thinking of dignity is one way to come across the answer. That said, while practically impossible to bring about, the situation where world peace and everyone’s dignity is maintained will also bring about a total end to conflict of physical harm.

the problem is not so much the billionaires itself. The existence of billionaires is a problem, but it is the manifestation to the extreme of the real problem which caused their existence.

If you do not revamp the method humans have followed time and time again, you will yet again have the owners, the kings and nobility, the wealthy (that’s the billionaires). These things have the cause. The reason the problem remains because removing the cause is quite unacceptable to humans.

Most people do not make the choice to not gain by causing others pain, however indirect. While that is not the root cause, looking into that can shed light a bit into the real nature of the problem (and of course, how to remove it, and them. Their ownership of extreme wealth, that is).

Short answer: not possible.

Long answer: If no one in the world desires power over anyone else for anything, there you have it. World peace. But people usually do not make that choice (I’m guessing at the momebt more than 95% of the people in the world have made the other choice), and forcing people to not have power is also having power over them and making them choose it. So it is not possible.

But you can contribute to world peace yourself. Have no power over anyone while simultaneously do not let anyone have power over you, and you make the world inch a bit more towards a peaceful state. Because not only do you not contribute to harming others, but you also make it incredibly hard for those who do harm others to do what they do. By pushing the problems which they create and push on others (like you, for example), right back on them. Dealing with the consequences of problems wilfully created by people keeps them too busy to create more problems, unless they defiantly create more problems. In which case you, again, do not let them have power over you and push the problems they created right back at them. So the key is, ironically, non co-operation to eventually get a world of peace.

… no one said it is easy. If they did, they said so without knowledge, or (and it usually is) they lied.

Of course. Really it is the opposite of ‘better’

Selling your soul for coin is real easy. No sympathy for this person in particular, this person didn’t even suffer for the evil deeds done.

Do you know how much of a scumbag you have to be to attack a hospital.

They’re quite proud of their actions rather, I imagine. And I do not doubt they proudly make it a matter of morality in some or another way.

Bolster the defenses, make it harder for the malicious.

If a person refuses to see whether they are causing harm even unintentionally… refuses to even try… that’s all that matters. Responsibility lies there when the person causes harm. Same for persons who are aware and are personally fine with causing harm for gain. On the other hand, seeing and personally trying to reduce it, a person can atone for harm caused by oneself. These things cannot be forced. Attempts to be fully aware and not cause harm only brings happiness to the one making such attempts in the end. The ‘pains of life’, which is the purpose for the concept of ‘escapes’ to exist in the first place, go away completely. You could call such pains either the result of maliciousness or the naivety which aids people who want to cause harm.

This is a decision everyone can only make by themselves.

Education has, traditionally, been more about control than anything else. It just seems the two most focussed groups are those who choose ‘acceptable learning’ which is wholly detrimental (and against) to critical thinking and intellectual freedom, and those who take the desire for the lack of learning to the extreme.

The best education is the one which wholly focuses on learning, without restriction. Very few places in the world have that.

Learning did not start with education and predates it by a lot. However, many people I’ve known who are educated cannot comprehend where things came from before they became information. The mindset that you cannot know anything unless you read it in a textbook. I too am educated but it felt most inadequate to me. We live in a somewhat educated world, and most of the educated world believes that the nature of many problems cannot be known and many problems cannot be solved.

That said, what the article states is absolutely worse. It is taking the traditional meaning of controlled education and using it to the extreme. Short term political gain, long term pain. If they are lucky enough to change ways in an adequate manner to avert disaster (and that is a very unlikely if), there will still be many economic and violent socially disruptive consequences which will directly be influenced by this choice. Such models of real forced control are not really sustainable—either the total (or even near total) control is a self-appreasing lie, or it is the prulude to the fall.

Big corporations cannot survive in a real free market. For that very reason real free markets do not exist. So the ‘legitimate businesses’ which do not do things as well as others do can survive.

As horrible as it sounds, no regulation is what makes a free market. But there is no free market because when there is talk of free market, it just means extreme regulation to stifle small, extremely small business. These businesses run by people who work with their own hands are what give the large ones a run for their money. They’re the real obstacle to large entities which do things in not the best way (so almost all of them). What people are left with are legitimate small businesses allowed under regulation after everything has been restricted already… and with the methods these follow, they’re no harm to the big entities. The common human be damned, they’re forced to choose from the least bad option for anything.

‘Free market’ in politics is a joke, an intentional joke. It wouldn’t be a little bit surprising if the ones who advocate for free markets most have a laugh, outside of public view, at people who actually believe their points.

To be fair… real free market would see the crashing of many industries as things go back to being a bit more practical. A slow process which takes even luxury to be affordable—but the meaning of luxury changes. Things inessential for survival would then be deemed luxury and such things, good things which are also very accessible, would be fairly common around. The main flaw with that, however, is the purpose of luxury. Luxury is hardly used to refer to things merely inessential for survival, they’re considered mere vehicles of showing your status and power (even though a relatively simple trick would be to not pay no heed to them). They are objects to enable one’s pride, ‘pride comes before the fall’ be damned to them. One can have solace in the thought that the fall really does come, though.

Note: I do not support deregulation, it just means to allow big corporations to fuck around at the cost of other humans. But then, I do not really support anything.

Many places. We’re at a stage currently where people are more engrossed in telling others what they ‘should’ do, and enforcing it, than just being ‘chill’, minding their business and working with their own hands to bring about the better times they preach about. Such people may sieze power over what they believe to he everyone in their respective regions, but they’re incapable of actually letting problems get solved or dealing with unexpected situations outside of ready made solutions they use but do not properly understand. The last resort is usually to manufacture and blame some ‘bad’ side which has no power yet somehow managed to destroy their hard work and sensible plans (there was no hard work and sensible planning).

I did the same. However, when I started paying attention solely to my own thing after choosing not to put any effort into seeking friendship, I became better perceiving of what is a good friend. Right now I can’t say I’ve got ‘friends’ and I do not seek out people with common attributes, but people who share some attributes with me (even the slightest) do chat for a bit. People who do not find it acceptable to personally harm others actively or passively for their own gain usually stick around and have a casual chat here and there—even when these persons and I are usually focusing on our own lives, sometimes time is just made for a casual chat. Usually wholesome stuff, nothing forced. Usually in the past, ‘friends’ had boundaries set so they didn’t hurt the other, yet usually things did get ugly very often. That pretty much didn’t happen now even without any such boundaries. It took some years of not conversing with others and wholly immersing myself in my own personal activities and development, but it got there.

For me as well, employment has been a problem because being from a bad family, I was stressed out all the time and that looked bad from an employability point of view. So I developed strength in a few fields which I never had before. Getting myself to a state where I could surpass the quality of the ‘mainstream’ by don’t with my own hands, not being dependent on resources, I was then greeted by regulation whose unspoken purpose seems to be the one thing it achieves—break the ability for solo business persons from doing what they can. You’re forced to be an employee. Now I can say that while my grades were decent, my ability was child-like compared to my ability now. Including practical ability, or rather especially, and having good technical ability as well helps this. I can say that the decisions and the abilities of those who perform a number of corporate duties made me scoff. I’ve basically fixed every problem I had which denied me proper employment before as well. All this, but I am not fit to be employed for reasons I know too well. So I’m doubling down on doing my own thing, releasing it digitally for free (and having few restrictions so that others can integrate my work into their own without worry) and relying on an appreciation model (what people call donations). Now, this is a model whoch doesn’t usually do well in the rare times when it doesn’t just fail, but that is usually because it is basically put out there and there is hope people will like it and spend on it (a bit more complex and more steps). My method will be a bit different—it will also not have paid exclusive content, which is a slightly fanous method.

You could try something I did, but I can only warn you that my method was very extreme. However, when I had no option and no chance in life from any choice, this thing opened up and broke that situation completely. Talent is nothing born from birth, it is just strength. Strength is only the ability to do things better with your own ability rather than with vhelp or tools, nothing more than that. Power is the tool which stops and drains any strength you have. Choose to have no power over anyone, and not to let anyone have pkwer over you as well. When you make decisions which are not one of a coward, one of an evil person, you feel pain. A pain which people resort to all sorts of things to escape. The pain is nothing but of the mind and body getting stronger—the body, bones included, literally rearranges and fixes any issues to get to stronger form. Accept the understand it till it subsides. I dif this process of pain for years till many health problems badically fixed themselves on their own, because the body is capable of that if you let it. Improving the kind and body in strength was improving the ability to do things—to improve skill. To assign talent to myself that I never posssessed, and to have no limit in how many things I can be talented in. Of course, the learning still needs to be done but its achieved at the pace of someone who is ‘naturally talented’ for a task. When your ability surpasses most, selling your thing will still be a problem due to the market and world structure, but it won’t be impossible with effort. As I stated… the method I used was extreme, and was even more painful because I was learning as I went along with it. I formed the steps from painful experience. Maybe it could help.

Edit: An important part of this is knowing what power is. Power is making others do what you want them to do, and even telling others what they should do. So this method cannot be used without practically forgetting the concept of should. Many will disagree with it… but since I started it, my intolerance of people who want to harm others has only increased; my ability to deal with them has improved. The key is it is difficult at first to not make others do things that they don’t want to, while not letting them to force you to do things yku do not want to without having power over them. And there’s a lot more to figure out before you’ll be able to fix many problems that seem to be a big nuisance to most.