dntbnmpls

Apparently only when china does it. Imagine the hypocritical hysteria if this was about the chinese government. Not just from the social media propagandists but also our elected leaders - many of them in congress supporting this "aid".

The internet was a government project. Silicon Valley is a government creation. The internet nor silicon valley exists without government funding. Government investment can be a good thing as long as they allow space for the private sector.

The EU should also look into subsidizing their tech stack ( hardware and software ) like they did with Airbus. Hopefully india will follow soon after and eventually ASEAN and africa. The more competition and diversity of options, the better.

> PLEASE treat reddit as a web-first platform.

Agreed. But I think they've made up their minds already.

In the meantime, you can use "old.reddit.com" until they decide to take that away.

> and letting private companies suppress speech, which is what happens in America.

Considering that private companies are now becoming more powerful than many governments/countries, maybe this is something we should take another look at.

> When the government does it, you can't express that idea anywhere.

Can't you argue that you can always move to another country, just like you can use another company?

> When private companies do it, you can still express those ideas somewhere else.

Depends on the private company and its scale/monopolistic position.

> That's not in the article at all.

"English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."

I can only copy and paste the full context so many times...

> So you either misunderstand what Germanic is, or you're choosing to read the author's sentence substituting "Germanic" for German, or you're being deliberately hostile.

No you are being intentionally obtuse. You knew fully what the author meant but you intentionally cherrypicked one sentence and misrepresented his entire point.

The author CLEARLY stated : "English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."

> ... Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, socrates is mortal... but not all men are socrates.

You might want to look up what a syllogism is.

The easiest way to end your nonsense. Lets end it once and for all. So you are claiming that the author is saying that english came from the modern german language right?

"English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."

To you, the author is saying english came from the modern german language with the statements above? Of course not. You are so full of shit, I don't know why you keep pushing your nonsense. Of course you won't answer but go off on a tangent. People can see through your nonsense. Have a nice day.

> And, really, a reference from 2016?

And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to predict the future?

> Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now.

It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground. Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't posted any sources right? So you should be thanking me for using 2016 data because solar has taken a beating since 2016.

> PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

Solar was a nonfactor in 2016. Solar is a nonfactor today. Solar will be a nonfactor in the future. Mindless zealotry won't change the facts on the ground.

Um, yes.

"Full context: "English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."

> Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, I even responded on a point by point basis. Did you read what I wrote?

> German and English started from a common ancestor yes

It is clear the author was talking about german as in germanic. Hence why he referred to old english and anglo-saxon. Nobody is saying that english came from the modern german language.

You sneakily copied one sentence out of context to argue nonsense - that the author claimed english came from modern german. You built up a silly straw man and you got called out.

Once again. The author wasn't claiming the modern english language came from modern german. But the language that english descended from was german. Just like the anglo-saxon people were german. As in germanic. Okay?

> "English started out as German."

Full context: "English started out as German. Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, really is a foreign language, and requires serious study. I don't think an anglophone can learn to read it with mere tricks."

> Can we not do better than this?

Can you just stop copying and pasting things out of context?

> But this is like saying that "Spanish started out as French" or "Romanian started out as Italian"

It's more like saying spanish started as latin given the context.

> English is descendended from the Anglo-Saxon dialects

So english started out as german?

> and in other ways the manifestations of lobotomy and morphine are similar enough to lead some researchers to describe the action of morphine (and some barbiturates) as ‘reversible pharmacological leucotomy [lobotomy]’.

Interesting. Wonder if they did brain scans on people taking morphine to see if the same areas were affected. If so, couldn't we narrow "mindfulness of pain" to that section of the brain?

> In this case it was simply a copy paste error which they pointed out.

Right and life went on before you decided to play "hero".

> They apologized because they were being civil and polite not out of some admission of guilt.

But you told him not to apologize. So that means you told him not to be civil? Also, it's not polite to speak for others as it isn't part of civil discourse.

> I think you can see what others thought of your tone as well.

Others? Just you. And it's rather childish to "appeal to downvotes".

> Both of your comments here come across as very angry.

"Yeah, no."

Listen, the only one causing drama here is you. I made one innocuous and helpful comment. The guy responded and everything was settled. The conversation had nothing to do with you and yet here you are.