LeT is a state sponsored terrorist organization. It was founded by General Zia as he proudly declaimed that he would "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts". I suggest reading the books written by Pak Generals to know that they fully believe in investing in militant/terror organizations - it is a firm and unalienable part of their military culture. Such a culture was actually encouraged by the US initially before the 9/11 blow-back.
Assuming you are using an atomic CSS based framework like tailwind, this would be unnecessary right ? Since all the CSS class names are anyways in-lined with the element.
That said, if all of your css is referenced by html classes, it would be trivial to look at the html that's above the fold and derive which css you need to load first which could be kinda cool.
There is a very, very broad line in that "no logic or processing". HTML/CSS already do a lot of logic and processing. And many "markup languages" have include support. Like wikitext used in wikipedia and includes in Asciidoc.
Curious - If this exact act had been done under the Obama or Biden administrations, would you still hold the same opinion ? Tesla was still a love child at that time.
Many companies like Honda are now moving part of domestic production to the US.
If Obama was best buds with Elon and telling the USA to buy Teslas and calling any vandalism against Tesla terrorism and campaigning together and doing Oval Office press conferences together and having Thanksgiving dinner together and letting Elon run a made up government agency?
Come on. It’s blatant corruption in broad daylight. Don’t try and both sides it.
But to answer your question directly if Obama had declared a fake economic emergency to consolidate power to himself and used that emergency power to abruptly pass a series of sweeping tariffs with no clear strategy or messaging and then selectively rolled back some of those tariffs in a way that only benefitted a specific company. Yes. I would feel the same.
What speech that makes him uncomfortable has he banned exactly ? Asking out of curiosity because I see posts on twitter all the time calling him Nazi, blah-blah.
There are tens of thousands of posts with the word "cisgender" at the moment on X. So, I think this "ban" is currently only in one's febrile imagination. Putin does not allow tens of thousands of opposition politicians, so the analogy also does not hold.
Its an extremely big difference from the Biden era where any post critical of the vaccine and backed up with papers was taken down pronto. This was even confirmed in several senate hearings.
As a non-American, I was very happy when Musk bought out twitter - it was ridiculous being unable to criticize vaccines - you couldn't even articulate the Indian government's stance on Pfizer and how Pfizer refused to provde test data. "Freedom of speech" was utterly non-existent in that era.
> “The words ‘cis’ or ‘cisgender’ are considered slurs on this platform,” Mr Musk wrote in June.
> “Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.”
> The newly enforced policy, first reported by TechCrunch on Tuesday, saw some users greeted with a full-screen warning when trying to publish a post using the terms on the X mobile app.
The fact that this is arbitrarily enforced isn't exactly painting it as a haven for free speech. The only thing worse than absolute censorship (which is obvious and can be routed around) is stochastic, inconsistent censorship - which gives him and his defenders a fig leaf[1] to hide behind.
Look, maybe you prefer the new brand of censorship X has adopted. It sounds like you do. Great. But what you can't do is call it a free speech platform, while keeping a straight face.
[1] I would like to point out, as an example: that China doesn't censor the internet - you just mysteriously have your connection go to shit and drop out if you try to search for 4/15.
So, posts are NOT being banned, but only visibility tagged as that article mentions and as many users also explicitly tested. No one reported a ban - only a warning with a visibility setting. Seems perfectly fine. Your speech is NOT banned as you incorrectly claim. And your account is still valid.
Did you ever try writing a mRNA-vaccine critical post during the Biden administration on twitter, quoting factual sources and linking to scientific papers ? Your account got banned pronto.
And as we all know now - it was done at the behest of the US white house.
Firstly, it's absolutely bonkers that any alleged 'free speech absolutist' could consider 'cisgender' to be a slur. It's like saying that 'man' is a slur.
And that's not an argument that you're going to do well with. Because the claim is utterly pants-on-head, irredeemably farcical, as is anyone who would stand behind it.
---
But, secondly, if you read the screenshots in the link, you'll see that the posts are being suppressed.
---
And thirdly, you don't see me claiming that pre-Musk Twitter was any kind of bastion of 'free speech absolutism'. I'm not making that argument.
The argument I'm making is that post-Musk Twitter definitely isn't one.
Speaking as a non-American, this is just not true. I have always been impressed by the very high quality of American engineers.
I cannot comment on manufactured goods though, but I think if the US rebuilds its mid-level industrial pipeline, quality would be amongst the best in the world since Americans generally hold themselves to a high standard. I don't think there is a need to be so negative.
No - most Asian nations did not recognize the South Vietnam govt propped up by Western powers. India for example supported Vietnamese independence from the French and recognized the PRG - Provisional Revolutionary Government which was the resistance movement in South Vietnam.
At any rate, even the US vetoed Vietnamese membership to the UN in 1975 - after losing the War.
Only because Jimmy Carter got elected in 1976 on the basis of a campaign pledge to forgive all draft evaders and beat Ford. Until he was elected, Vietnam was three times blocked from admission by United States vetoes in the Security Council.
When you look at the percentage of people involved in it and people who die to it, we're actually better off than pretty much ever before, even accounting for our vastly improved and devastating weaponry, and even when you look at massive conflicts like WW1 and WW2.
Thing is, a pre-agrarian society means hunters/gatherers, and for that to work out, you need quite a lot of land to provide for a single person (hence why those societies have such low population density). Thus, warfare in that era is all about directly reducing the number of people competing with you for those precious resources, either by killing them or by driving them off the land. And so pretty much all males are involved in it and regular mortality rates from constantly ongoing warfare can reach as high as 20%. Furthermore, warfare itself is explicitly genocidal in nature, e.g. raids of enemy villages, ideally while defenders are away so that you can slaughter as many as possible.
reply