Them too, but that’s really is a distinction without a difference. Thank you for pushing back on eurocentrism.

(I mean, unless you’re claiming Germany [and Italy] started the war in Europe in direct respone to their ally’s invasion?)

That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists

Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.

Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.

Don’t do the zionist work for them by limiting your criticism to just the rational people who should have stopped this.

WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.

Arguing with yourself in the mirror can improve your rhetoric. As could pretending that a random roll of polyhedral dice is agreement or disagreement. But either can also reinforce bad habits or not buttress good ones.

What sets LLM chatbots apart is that it’s easier to pretend. Which can be a beneficial thing depending on where you are in your growth, or it can be a very bad thing if you lack sufficient humility and self-awareness to treat the mindless software as no more than it is.

I’m with the AP on this, by the way. Don’t attribute cognitive actions to software. No chatbot can trick anyone. Humans use them to trick humans, either other humans or ourselves.

Because document.certificates are not legal declarations. The only thing they do is add some confidence to the declaration that you already make just by offering a document.

Microsoft wants a higher quality and distinctly revokable certificate by default as a ward against malicious software. Users can absolutely ignore it or even trust a self-created certificate that you provide.

Apple, Google, Valve, Epic, Amazon, and also Microsoft charge a fee and/or a revenue cut to offer something for sale on their commerce platforms. Unlike Windows or Linux, “app stores” have potentially severe liability if malicious software is found on their platform, on top of other compliance costs, so they charge a fee to offset their risks or costs.

All of the above is mostly a pragmatic and economic argument. But you asked “why are they allowed”, which presumes that there is some grand permission structure that has to assent before anyone can do anything. Which is not generally how the world works.

For most counties in the world, laws affecting private behavior only get passed to stop behavior that is already occurring. Since no one has passed a “think of the poor nerds” law prohibiting walled gardens in software, the gardens are free to exist and you are free to offer your work elsewhere.

To be as deferential as possible: because sexual assault charges are hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when the women was caught on camera shouting “help, I’m being raped!”

To phrase it as every politician who challenges the local DA for the rest of his career: because Matthew Van Houten (D,WF) is a sexist asshole who didn’t do his fucking job and investigate a crime.

To phrase it as the local Democratic and Working Families parties will when challenged: because the county is dominated by that elitist ivy league school and the corrupt rich treat embarrassment worse than they do rape.

Dorks recommending that other dorks who couldn’t even figure out Word should instead use a gui wrapper around an overcomplicated text-based markup format are a special kind of something.

That said, I havent even looked at LaTeX in over twenty years so maybe it has had dramatic improvements since the invention of markdown…

I know there was a pre-Brexit referendum that failed in part because Scotland didn’t want to leave the EU. Waa there another one?

Fiat currency always ultimately has its value ultimately set by court judgements and the threat thereof, to pay taxes or restitution or debts in some number of the specified currency.

Depending on what you mean by “viable”, you could assert that your country manages to not deflate its currency by sharply limiting how many notes it issues and preferring foreign currency for banking. Considering how tiny your country is, this is probably a good idea anyway.

(Also, note that the country is VERY small. On the scale of Wyoming, the least populous state in the USA.)

(Also also, since WW2’s start in 1939 inflation has increased the same-value equivalent for US dollars by some 2300%. If their tax coupons were set to 1 us dollar way back then, they’d each be worn about 20 euros now.)