When in practice Corruption is not investigated or prosecuted, nobody ever gets convicted of Corruption, the Media can’t talk about Corruption as it would otherwise be defamation, hence the country has no Corruption.
I haven’t lived in the US but I lived in the UK and this was exactly how Britain had “no Corruption”.
More like “not making as much money as they want”.
Thank the gods you put an /S at the end.
“The German Nazi Party adopted and developed several racial hierarchical categorizations as an important part of its fascist ideology (Nazism) in order to justify enslavement, extermination, ethnic persecution and other atrocities against ethnicities which it deemed genetically or culturally inferior. The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping and it was accepted by Nazi thinkers. The Nazis considered the putative “Aryan race” a superior “master race” with Germanic peoples as representative of Nordic race being best branch” (Source)
In their ideology, German people and Arian Race were the same thing, same as Zionists conflate Israeli with Jewish.
All you proved with your decontextualized quote is that Nazis also claimed to support Germans (which makes sense, as ethno-Fascists are a kind of Fascist hence also use the “love of the nation” in their speeches). That doesn’t disprove that they had an ideology of racial superiority, saw other ethnicities as inferiors and committed Genocide along ethnic lines which is what makes the not merely Fascists but actually Nazis (and the reason why people remember them still, whilst almost nobody remembers the parties of the traditional Fascists such as Mussolini or Franco).
To back your claims that Trump is a Nazi rather than “just” a traditional Fascist, you need to show that he has the kind additional ideology elements that made the Nazis be something else (much much worse) than merely Fascists and that’s the whole rabid violent racism thing.
Well, that I respect because it’s all consistent.
It’s the hypocrisy of using Nazi as a partisan political insult (all the while ignoring all the support going on for the real modern day Nazis in one’s own party) that I find disgusting.
That’s traditional Fascism, which is all about the nation.
Nazism would be “Latinos have been poisoning our White blood”, a whole different ball game and far, far more prone to extreme violence in the form of things like ethnic cleansing.
If you want to see how present day Nazi ideology manifests itself, look at Zionists: they claim to represent an ethnicity, that their ethnicity are a superior people (“the chosen people”) and that the neighbouring ethnicity whose land they invaded and who they are currently mass murdering are less than human (“human animals”).
I have yet to see Trump claiming to represent whites, saying that whites are superior and wanting to invade Latin American and murder the latinos because of deeming them subhuman.
Don’t get me wrong, Trump absolutely is a Fascist. However directly so far he doesn’t seem to be a Nazi and if he is a Nazi because of who he “sits with” then so are the Democrats since they all sit with the Zionists, the biggest and most murderous Nazi-like ideology around.
The expression Mango Mussolini fits Trump so well exactly because he’s a Fascist in the same vein as Mussolini, not the same vein as Hitler.
You’re using circular logic or missing my point entirely.
The Democrat leadership sat with Nazis because they support Zionists, who are the biggest group around promoting racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing, and even commiting a Genocide along ethnic lines, all of which are ethno-Fascist ideas, the same kind of ideology as Nazis.
Trump and the Rest of the Republicans sat with Nazis because they too support Zionist as well assupporting white supremacists (a smaller group of Nazis than Zionists and who at the moment aren’t commiting Genocide, but who also have a racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing ideology, same as the Zionists and the original Nazis)
As far as I know, Trump himself has never defended racial supremacy or ethnic cleansing, so he is not directly a Nazi. However he definitely seats with Nazis, as does Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
It has nothing to do with seating with each other since it’s perfectly possible for opposing groups to both be Nazis because they both support racials supremacist ideas and ethnic cleansing or support people who support those ideas.
If sitting with Nazis makes one a Nazi then everybody who supports Zionists, white supremacists or any other kind of extreme racist political movement which believes in their own racial supremacy and sees it as a reason to violently expel or eliminate people of ethnic groups they see as inferior, is a Nazi, which would means Trump, the Republicans, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats are Nazis since they’ve been sitting with those who follow ideologies like Nazism.
That is an absolutely valid take (assuming you really believe the principle rather than merely parroting the slogan), which would mean that Trump, most of the Republicans, Biden, Harris and most of the Democrats are Nazis, as are anybody who supports them in any way form or shape including with a vote, because all are “sitting wit h Nazis” by supportingnthem, which explains why some people simply refused to vote for either party (as they didn’t want support Nazis).
You have my total respect if you genuinely believe that as a principle and hence apply it equally to all 11 people sitting on that table with the Nazi.
If however you do not apply that rule equally to all 11 people, and say that only some (Trump) are Nazis for sitting down with modern day Nazis whilst others (Biden) are not Nazis for sitting down with modern day Nazis, then you’re just a hypocrite using the word Nazi as a slogan.
Sadly a lot of people here are just jumping on the “let’s call Trump a Nazi” bandwagon and do not apply the same rule that justifies caling Trump a Nazi, to those in their own party (which the rule would deem as Nazi since they too wilfully “sit with Nazis”) or accept that many people did not vote for their party or the other party exactly because they sawnthosnwhonsupport modern day Nazis as being themselves Nazis (exaxtly as per the sentence you quoted) and hence refuse to not support such Nazis.
Trumps is indeed a traditional Fascist.
Nazis, however, are ethno-Fascists, a far worse kind of Fascist, whose ideology is anchored on racial supremacy and who are far more prone to extreme violence.
Although traditional Fascists are violent, they don’t just go around mass murdering people because of their ethnicity, whilst ethno-Fascists most definitely do.
In the present day the biggest and most powerful group of ethno-Fascists - i.e. the present day Nazis - are Zionists, though there are also white supremacists who are also ethno-Fascists (hence also present day Nazis) even if their violent ethnic cleansing acts are not yet to the level of Zionists and they have different lists of superior and inferior races.
So if one genuinely believes that people can be deemed Nazis by associating with Nazis (specifically Nazi-like groups, since the National Socialist Party Of The German Worker doesn’t exist anymore, so there aren’t strictly speaking any Nazis anymore), then one must believe that by association Trump and most of their party are Nazis because of supporting both Zionists (whilst they are engaged in genocide-level ethnic cleansing, no less) and white supremacists, AND so are Biden, Harris and most of their party for supporting Zionists.
If on the other hand one believes people can only be deemed a Nazi if they espouse an ideology of racial supremacy and murderous expulsion or annihilation of one or more races they see as sub-human (“human animals”, “untermenschen”) - i.e. ethno-Fascism - then Trump is not a Nazi, “just” a traditional Fascist (i.e. Mussolini rather than Hitler) and by the same logic Biden and Harris are not Nazis.
Those people who use one definition of what makes one a Nazi for Trump and a different one for the Democrat leadership, are hypocrites.
The hypocrisy of many calling Trump a Nazi is mind boggling.
As far as I can tell Trump can only be deemed a Nazi by association - he’s not been going around spouting stuff about people’s races making them superior or inferior to others like an ethno-Fascist and instead he’s been mostly using traditional Fascist dog whistles (I.e. about the superiority of the Nation), but since he has indeed cultivated the support of neo-nazis and other ethno-Fascists in the US, he’s associating with Nazis.
The hypocrisy comes because the most Nazi ideology around right now is Zionism - they’re ethno-Fascists, claiming to represent a race, going on and on about the superiority of their race (calling it “the chose people”) whilst being overtly racist about Arabs in general and even more so Palestinians who they call “human animals”, i.e. subhumans whis is literally untermenschen - and, even more extreme, they’re mass murdering them right now by the hundreds of thousands.
Anybody who here and now calls Trump a Nazi due to his association with ethno-Fascists but has previously been defending Biden, Harris and most of the Democrat party as not being Nazis all the while they were actively supporting with weapons the present day Nazis who were actively engaged in a genocide along racial lines, is a hypocrite.
Ditto anybody going around criticizing people who chose to neither vote Democrat nor Republican: it is absolutely understandable that when people only have the choice between two sets of Nazis, many chose “neither”. After all, if one is a Nazi by supporting Nazis, then the Republicans supporting of Nazis makes them Nazis and giving support to the Nazis-Republicans (for example by voting for them) makes one a Nazi and exactly in the same way the Democrats supporting the present day Nazis makes them Nazis, so supporting Nazi-Democrats makes one a Nazi - anybody who does indeed believe people can become “Nazi by association” land does not want to be a Nazi, would refuse to vote for either Nazi-by-association party.
I truly respect those with the genuine principles and ideological consistency of calling both main American parties Nazis (as I said, if one thinks associated with Nazi = Nazi, then logically they are both Nazis) or at least Nazi-supporting, because they are.
It’s only the political tribalists for whom one group of Nazi-supporters are Nazis but the other group of Nazi-supporters are not Nazis because the former is “them” and the other is “us” who are despicable hypocrites.
I’ve seen, again an again, deploying to Staging and integration testing in that Production-like environment together with the software of other teams, reveal problems that we did not saw in Dev, thus saving us from deploying into Production software that broke or, worse, corrupted the database.
This was certainly very important when I worked in environments such as Investment Banking where Production being down because of integration issues or, worse, sending bad data to other systems or the database having to be rolled back to the overnight backup, might mean the business losing millions of dollars.
It’s not a foolproof mechanism but it certainly catches most integration problems, which are often most of the problems in complex environments where multiple teams are responsible for multiple highly integrated software systems,
Granted, little teams doing small software systems in simple environments were their software has little or no integration with other software, can probably get away with not having a Staging environment if their Dev environments has the same setup as Production (same OS, same database and so on) since they’re going to have very little in the way of Integration problems with other people’s software.
I’m sure buying them is generally easier, this being the United States Of America.
I’ve lived in The Netherlands and they’re “complicated” if you’re used to, for example, English-style of politeness or even Mediterranean-style exuberance.
They tend to be very direct, objective-oriented and seemingly cold/closed towards strangers (they open up more with friends and family), so for example if you’re in a work environment and one person’s trying to do things in broken Dutch is hindering the actual accomplishment of the work objectives (for example, in a work meeting), that will probably be pointed out to them, though I’ve never seen it done so rudelly.
They also tend to be pretty proud of their English-language speaking abilities and when you’re just learning Dutch and try to speak to them in it, often switch to English when they spot (from the accent) that somebody comes from an English-speaking country (so for me, who am Portuguese, they didn’t tend to do it and I could just silently ignore it when they did because they couldn’t be sure I actually knew English, but I had friends and colleagues over there from Britain, US and Australia who constantly got that and for whom it was a lot harder to learn the local language), though I don’t think that applies in your example.
It bet that happenned in a professional environment or some kind of professional situation.
That said, that specific telling off would be considered rude even in Dutch terms: if a person’s attempts at using Dutch are hindering doing the work, one is supposed to tell them that as the reason to switch to English (say, “other people are waiting behind you in the queue” or “we don’t have time to do this meeting in Dutch”, though one will probably not get a “I’m sorry but” or “I’m afraid that” or other such decorations to soften the blow which you would get in most other countries. In that quote of yours the other person making it about themselves “I’m not your Dutch teacher” and just bossing the other person “we will”(!), would be considered rude even by Dutch standards IMHO.
Personally (and note that I lived over 8 years in the Netherlands and do speak the language), had somebody told me off like that my reaction would probably be to not give a shit and carry on speaking Dutch since that person made it about themselves and I’m just as entitled to do it the way I see fit as they are to do it their way and I very much suspect (can’t be totally sure) this reaction comes from that part of me that are the elements of the Dutch mindset I’ve taken in from having lived there so long (certainly the whole “I’m just as entitled to my preferences as you to yours” feels very Dutch).
During the period when I was starting to learn Dutch on various occasions the other person switched to English (probably because my Dutch was really bad or I was having trouble following them) and I just kept on speaking Dutch, and I think I was once or twice told off for trying to say something complex with my really broken Dutch whilst buying something and I was holding the queue, but they simply pointed out I was holding the queue.
It’s funny that I’ve never had bad experiences with the French and most of my visits to France were to Paris.
Then again I do speak French and try and take advantage of being over there to exercise my language knowledge in it as much as I can.
In my experience people almost everywhere (well, not in English-speaking countries, probably because English is the present day lingua franca so it’s kinda expected that you can speak it) generally appreciate you trying to speak their language even if you’re pretty bad at it and just trying to learn the local “good day”, " goodbye" and “thank you” will get you a lot of goodwill.
Yeah, I have a similar situation with Borderlands 2 not running on my machine with Windows 7 but running just fine in Linux with Proton (which is Steam’s branch of Wine).
It seems to me that Linux with Wine is actually better at backwards compatibility for Windows applications than Windows itself.
PS: Also a handful of old games I have from GoG that wouldn’t run on Windows run just fine with Wine on Linux.
What I find delicious is that he is implicitly stating that being on any Meta platform is not virtuous.
I did the same, and when I switched I just switched to Linux rather than another Windows version.
Then again I’ve been playing with Linux (and using it professionally on the server side) since the 90s, so am not at all representative of most people out there.
A family of software development processes for teams, which focuses on cycles of quickly building and delivering smaller blocks of program functionally (often just a single program feature - say: “search customers by last name” - or just part of a feature) to end-users so as to get quick feedback from those users of the software, which is then is use to determining what should be done for subsequent cycles.
When done properly it addresses the issues of older software development processes (such as the Waterfall process) in siuations where the users don’t really have a detailed vision of what the software needs to do for them (which are the most usual situations unless the software just helps automates their present way of doing things) or there are frequent changes of what they need the software to do for them (i.e. they already use the software but frequently need new software features or tweaks to existing features).
In my own career of over two decades I only ever seen it done properly maybe once or twice. The problem is that “doing Agile” became fashionable at a certain point maybe a decade ago and pretty much a requirement to have in one’s CV as a programmer, so you end up with lots of teams mindlessly “doing Agile” by doing some of the practices from Agile (say, the stand up meeting or paired programming) without including other practices and elements of the process (and adjusting them for their local situation) thus not achieving what that process is meant to achieve - essentially they don’t really understand it as a software development process which is more adequate for some situations and less for others and what it actually is supposed to achieve and how.
(The most frequent things not being done are those around participation of the end-users of the software in evaluating what has been done in the last cycle, determining new features and feature tweaks for the next cycle and prioritizing them. The funny bit is that these are core parts of making Agile deliver its greatest benefits as a software development process, so basically most teams aren’t doing the part of Agile that actually makes it deliver superior results to most other methods).
It doesn’t help that to really and fully get the purpose of Agile and how it achieves it, you generally need to be at the level of experience at which you’re looking at the actual process of making software (the kind of people with at least a decade of experience and titles like Software Architect) which, given how ageist a lot of the Industry is are pretty rare, so Agile is usually being done by “kids” in a monkey-sees-monkey-does way without understanding it as a process, hence why it, unsurprising, has by now gotten a bit of a bad name (as with everything, the right tool should be used for the right job).
They’re supposed to work as an adaptor/buffer/filter between the technical side and the non-technical stakeholders (customers, middle/upper management) and doing some level of organising.
In my 2 and a half decades of experience (a lot of it as a freelancer, so I worked in a lot of companies of all sizes in a couple of countries), most aren’t at all good at it, and very few are very good at it.
Some are so bad that they actually amplify uncertainty and disorganisation by, every time they talk to a customer or higher up, totally changing the team’s direction and priorities.
Mind you, all positions have good professionals and bad professionals, the problem with project management is that a bad professional can screw a lot of work of a lot of people, whilst the damage done by, for example, a single bad programmer, tends to be much more contained and generally mainly impacts the programer him or herself (so that person is very much incentivised to improve).
Just force them to use open standards and for it to be easy for people to move platform whilst keeping all the connections to their profile: the power of such social media entities is that people are locked-in because if they move they lose the connections of both followers and those they follow, which often means family and friends.
Basically a solution similar to that adopted in Europe for phone numbers - that you can take your number with you when you move providers - would reduced social media companies down to “just a pipe for social media connectivity” which would ultimatelly kill those with the worst practices given that the barrier to entry to be a “social media provider” is way lower than to be a fixed line telephony provider.