18·
19 days agoRemoved by mod
- 0 Posts
- 15 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: March 11th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
And the “history” of the event you were taught was a fantasy cooked up by McCarthyist acolytes to spread atrocity propaganda.
The history I was taught is backed by documentation. The history you were taught ignores the documentation and takes the word of a government that tried to destroy any documents that existed of the event.
Took me all of 1 second to realize that the massacre happened after the 1940s.
Then it took me all of an additional minute to read what happened after the 1940s in the Wikipedia article:
“The Chinese Communist Party re-organized the Red Cross organization in Beijing and was admitted to the International Federation in 1950.”
The “history” you will be taught in that course won’t include the reports of the journalists who were there at the time and whose film was confiscated. The famous tank man picture only survived because the journalist who took that picture hid it in a toilet.
The Chinese Red Cross estimated 2,600 fatalities. That’s a lot of fishermen.
ROC doesn’t claim to legitimately rule China anymore. That was just KMT’s delusion, and they’re no longer in power.
31·1 month agoSEO doesn’t mean that the site pays Google. It’s exactly the opposite. SEO means gaming the Google ranking algorithm to appear higher in the organic rankings without paying Google. In the past, people would do this by creating link farms to game the page rank component.
Supporting apartheid has nothing to do with antitrust. In fact, there is no law against it at all.
Google does not “throttle access to sites that don’t pay them.” Paying for an ad placement is as old as newspapers. There is no evidence that they additionally down rank sites that have no advertising account with them, and it wouldn’t make any business sense anyway because having nonpaying sites rank highly is what convinces a paying site to pay more to get top of page ad placement.
Welcome to 2010. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html
Remote installation via the web has been exposed to the user since 2011. https://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/02/introducing-android-market-website.html
This also means users can remotely uninstall. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-store-uninstall-button-3614548/
Yes, it’s possible that Google will abuse this, but it would be an easy antitrust case.
1·1 month agoIt’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.
No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
After these articles, the “free area” was defined to include just the areas that ROC controls, so the parliament no longer has representatives for mainland Chinese provinces. Based on that, the parliament no longer claims to represent all of China, and the ruling DPP asserts that Taiwan is a separate sovereign state from China. https://jhulr.org/2024/06/12/taiwans-constitutional-battle-the-case-for-the-republic-of-china-roc-constitution/