Blowing some shit up in the grey zone (or even Kursk) is one thing - his state hasn’t been threatened in any real way (which is their nuke threshold policy).
However, lobbing western made (and make no mistake, western operated) weapons into their internationally recognized territory is an entirely different ballgame.
That’s a typical drive-by headline. Did you even read the article? Or the first hand sources? Putin never once threatened using nukes out of the blue like some kind of madman - only reinstated their pretty bog standard nuclear defense policy when asked about it. Context is important, don’t be an idiot.
No, they get a vote, obviously. You've focussed on the vote part of the quote when the important information was in the racism. It's racism that must be constantly pointed out, that people must be educated about, and racism should be rooted out when found. I'm not saying you support racism in any way, of course, I really don't think that. I just think you misunderstood what needs doing to prevent these unforced errors (Brexit was an unforced error of the UK government).
> It's racism that must be constantly pointed out, that people must be educated about, and racism should be rooted out when found.
As I pointed out in a different post, trying to shame people into silence doesn't magically change their vote.
Unfortunately, when you are going to call every Rep supporter a racist with no evidence other than who they voted for, they are going to stop answering your polls honestly.
Racists don't need shaming into silence. They need to understand what's wrong with their beliefs.
Going back to the original quote, you need to see that it's not calling all voters a particular thing. There's a simple Venn diagram, one circle of racists inside a larger circle of a particular block of voters.
Educating people out of racism, and removing racism from your society, will change votes as racism is only one aspect of a person's beliefs.
> Racists don't need shaming into silence. They need to understand what's wrong with their beliefs.
They already know, they don't care, because that specific belief is not rooted in reason or rationality.
> Going back to the original quote, you need to see that it's not calling all voters a particular thing. There's a simple Venn diagram, one circle of racists inside a larger circle of a particular block of voters.
> Educating people out of racism, and removing racism from your society, will change votes as racism is only one aspect of a person's beliefs.
I somewhat agree with the first part[1], but vehemently disagree with the second: I don't think that eradicating racist thoughts will move the needle on who gets elected, as there are, IMO, simply too few racists around to influence an election.[2]
[1] IOW, I don't believe that education will change a racist's belief, but I do see value to society in eradicating discriminatory stereotypes and discriminatory actions, of which racism is merely one.
[2] There aren't even enough racists to form a party of their own, so I doubt that them moving from red to blue is going to be any difference from statistical noise.
Hold that thought. HN Commentators, feel free to correct me if I've mis-read the room, but I think there are very few here who do not realise that Trump's presidency will go poorly for the USA and the rest of the world's democracies.
Wish I could agree. I've seen a marked shift in tone.
What I'd say is that there is a significant number of "libertarians" whose "liberty" veneer is scratching off and the authoritarian conservative body underneath is starting to show through, as it always does.
Also, most "lefty" US tech workers are "lefty" only on social/cultural issues -- and would not be broadly in favour of socialist or social democratic economic policy... which I guess describes Democrats in the US generally.
Your hyperbole aside, you imply that his last term was good, rather than poor. I'm asking about HN's collective opinion, which you've contributed to, thank you, but not, perhaps, in the way you thought you were.
The inequality in a nation must have a huge effect on the nature of the people in that nation. That a treatise on inequality has won a Nobel prizes for economics would tend to support your thesis [1]. That another Nobel prize winner has also written on inequality should clinch it [2].
I think we can all see that correcting to oligarchy/authoritarianism/fascism never works out well for any nation. I don't see your suggestion of a correction working out here either.
Perhaps you could use the word "idiot" and refer to them as "idiots". The term has been used in a medico-legal context in the past to define a person's mental age.
That there is a divide between the two parties and the average intellectual ability of their supporters is a well-known fact. I'd contest that this is less of an issue than their racism.
So you really think more than half of the Americans are mentally impaired? The probability of being mentally impaired is higher for a random poster like you than for half of American people.
Your understanding of statistics is deplorable. Also, your reading ability. I specifically said it's racism, rather than the (verifiable) lack of intelligence.
- readme at the root of each of application with keeping it up to date part of each relevant change. Something perhaps to consider in peer reviews.
- onboarding checklist with the new person now responsible for the checklist so when the next person needs it they can take them through it.
- mentoring with real contact between the new person and the mentor so they engage in shadowing and pairing.
- wikis are generally pretty poor, partly as they are external to the daily work, partly because nobody is made responsible. Could you delete it?
Of these I consider the README to be the most important. Imagine you are an open source application and you want to encourage others to improve your code. How would you do that? Add clear instructions on how to get it working on every platform? Include diagrams, made with simple, free tooling like Mermaid and drawio? Describe architectural decisions?
On gaining independence in 1956 Sudan endured two civil wars with up to a million deaths in the first civil war and between one and two million deaths in the second civil war.
Colonial governments like the British often (almost always) left a mess behind them.
Not relevant as the partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947 which created the constitutions. The Act was agreed upon by the legislature representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community with Lord Mountbatten.
The point stands that decolonisation was a mess and the colonisers played a large part in it.
I think the point is in spite of decolonization being orders of magnitude more messy countries like India have established fully functioning peaceful societies.
