letsgo

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, I'm not intentionally lying but I may have been misinformed. TIL, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Perhaps you could update the Wikipedia article with your knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers

"It consisted of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria; this was also known as the Quadruple Alliance"

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

Must be the updated version of ~~~~####3$3$$%^^~~~! NO CARRIER

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

It's not stolen. Brief history lesson:

The lands of Israel and Jordan used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans sided with the Nazis.

Brief aside: we know the Arabs believe that if you win a war, you win the land, and if you lose a war, you lose the land, because that's what they want to happen with Israel. So this principle applies to them as well.

When the Nazis lost, the Ottomans also lost, and that's where the British and French Mandates began. The land was no longer owned by the Arabs because, according to the principle they live by, they lost the war, therefore they lost the land.

The British Mandate for Palestine comprised an amount of previously Ottoman land, of which they allocated one third to the new country Israel (which includes Gaza and the West Bank), and two thirds to the new country Transjordan, later renamed Jordan. The land of Israel was not stolen by the Jews from the Arabs, it was lost by the Arabs in a war they lost. But they got two thirds of that land back, i.e. Jordan.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

His nickname's CleverDick.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I had a Sony phone once. It was shite. Couldn't remember the date and time on a reboot.

It was crap in other ways too but that was the one that annoyed me the most. Obviously the majority of the price went on the name and not the phone. Shame really, Sony used to be a name that meant quality, now they're just another bunch of MBA-led enshittifiers.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Fmovies? Never heard of... wait, sorry, what I meant to say was OH NO!!! Not Fmovies!!! Guess I'm going to have to buy everything now!!!!!11!1

Arr.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Don't worry guys. As long as project managers think "do the thing ... like the thing ... (waves hands around) ... you know ... (waves hands around some more) ... like the other thing ... but, um, ..., different" constitutes a detailed spec, we're safe.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Probably significantly fewer. Here in the UK someone's salary is about half of what it costs a business to employ them. It might be more than that in the USA but there will be other non-salary costs per employee.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Yes, and it took less than a minute of googling to find "I'm paying, why do I still see ads?". There's also someone in this thread complaining of the same.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Probably have to go old-skool and actually be at the machine.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

True, but knowing what the fix might be means you can Google it and see what comes back. It was on StackOverflow for example, but at the time of this comment has been taken offline for moderation - whatever that means.

 

This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states "the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries".

The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That's 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.

Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?

When I've paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?

Isn't this just a country that isn't doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying "oh there's this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling"?

Shouldn't payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?

(Please don't flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don't know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)

view more: next ›