kazagistar

Thats wrong too. If you use an unmodified version of AGPL software, or just host any modifications in a public repository like github, then you aren't in violation of AGPL, even if the rest of your stack is proprietary and your service paid. How does it prevent SaaS?

Side note: In an open office, people quickly learn to cheat and claim unused spaces like conference rooms for working undisturbed.

The people forced another election, and elected his party MAS (movement towards socialism) more overwhelmingly then they elected Evo Morales in the election last year where he was couped.

On the other hand, MAS intends to exploit its lithium. It just plans to do that in a way that grows a high tech domestic industry instead of just exporting raw product. They also plan to keep the profits local to fund social programs and such, which rubs the neoliberal free market imperialists like American foreign policy goons the wrong way.

All the first world countries already despoiled and continue to despoil the resources of the world at an alarming rate. They owe a debt, and this is asking them to pay that debt to those who haven't done so.

There is room for many types, and when it comes to more traditional storytelling, games can create more direct emotional connections by making you the character, rather then the protagonist just being someone you watch.

Critical race theory is so obvious its just boring. The boogeyman the right makes out of it just feels dumb.

Also, work to increase the democraticness of institutions in your country so that it may be changed in the future, and work to change people's thoughts on matters so they grow the will to change things.

The fact that the consequences are cleansed away makes it not remotely historical. You aren't playing a subset of history, you are playing a subset of propaganda.

Whats the point of setting it in a real war with real consequences if you are just going to erase all those realities? So many games seem set up so people can play war without consequences, but if you do that at least do it in a setting where you aren't insulting the real victims.

Monopolies (or even high concentrations) of power are bad, whether that's financial or legal or whatever. However, democratization can redistribute that power back amongst the people. The goal should be to work towards nearly even power, which prevents the abuses in power. If the government was controlled by the people, its "monopoly" wouldn't really be one, because it couldn't be abused by those who wield power within it.

The DNC doesn't have full throated machinery to win. They are specialized in losing and conceding ground. Their "machinery" is a huge number of corporations grifting a profit. They have lots of funds, but they also have lots of pockets to grease just to get some ads out or promote a few tweets or pay an army of strategic consultants that are paid massive salaries despite only having lost races.

The USA had exactly such laws, before they were struck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the landmark case Citizens United. The reasoning was that the right to free speech was protected at all scales and all categories absolutely, and thusvspending any amount on any political speech like buying ads was protected. The only way for such a law to pass now would be to either have the Supreme Court overturn this decision (unlikely, its still recent) or to change the constitution to specify political speech spending as unprotected by the right to free speech, which is even less likely given the supermajority needed, the natural conflict of interests with the entire existing political class, and thr sacredness with which the American people view the constitution, and that part of the document specifically.

I personally think Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy, but I fear a revolution after a prolonged slide into deep oligarchy might be the only way it ever changes.

I meant the plan of "stop emitting carbon, even if it hurts the economy".

Does that mean the finite duration of a black hole to an outside observer prior to its evaporation corresponds to an infinite duration of an observer within the black hole?

They would exit as a stream of extremely small and infrequent particles over billions or even trillions of years, depending on the size of the black hole, in most cases ending once all the stars have died and universal expansion has emptied out almost all of the accessible universe.