New DOJ proposal still calls for Google to divest Chrome, but allows for AI investments
literal clown posting
After three years in Ukraine, it's obvious to anybody with a minimally functional brain that Russia is not going to be able to invade Europe. However, what Russia will absolutely do is exploit the political instability in Europe caused by massive austerity needed to massively ramp up defense. Why invade the idiots when it's far cheaper to do political capture.
it's basically this https://peertube.mesnumeriques.fr/w/v3vBzaatzxupUB2WZGBmkb
updated the post to add it in
The U.S. Economy Is Really Looking Shaky - Urgent Warning Issued
The U.S. is making more seizures of illegal eggs than fentanyl at its Canadian and Mexican borders
Pioneering embodied intelligence innovation to lead new ecosystem for future mobility: He Xiaopeng
It's been invaded precisely because the US refused to publicly state that Ukraine would not joined NATO and wanted to maintain ambiguity on the matter while arming Ukraine. Nice of you to try and twist that around though. Gold star for mental gymnastics.
"Our country is called the People's Republic. We must always put the people first in our hearts." - Xi Jinping
White House may seek to slash NASA’s science budget by 50 percent
a certifiable FAFO moment for Canada
This is what all the experts have been warning of literally since the 90s.
prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
2 days of clashes and revenge killings in Syria leave more than 600 people dead
Air Force Mission Capability Rates Reach Lowest Levels in Years
The European Union (EU) has seen an increase in its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia in the first two weeks of 2025, according to data from Kpler.
Chinese scientists developed a chip using carbon nanotubes and a ternary logic system for faster, more energy-efficient computing than traditional silicon chips. CNTs, made from rolled-up sheets of graphene, offer superior electrical characteristics and ultra-thin structure, making them a promising material for next-generation semiconductors. Other advantages include higher carrier mobility, lower power consumption, and the potential for even smaller transistor sizes.
I regularly use Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube, and Lemmy.
Amazing work as always!
It's worth noting that Lemmy has plenty of different instances where opinion varies widely, including heavily liberal ones. I also don't believe in free speech absolutism because some views, like fascism, are objectively harmful. The way I look at it is the real issue with echo chambers comes from people becoming divorced from reality because they only interact with people who hold identical views. I don't see this being a major problem on Lemmy instances I frequent.
It's hilarious to watch this happen in real time. I'm guessing in a few months time they'll be openly talking about the need to end the proxy war.
You can't solve what's fundamentally a social problem with technology alone. Technology is simply a piece of the bigger picture where it can provide forums like this where genuine organic communication can happen without it being mediated by corporate interests. However, the shift in the Overton window is ultimately driven by the material conditions. As the standard of living continues to deteriorate in the west, more and more people end up falling out of liberal mainstream. We see this process happening at an ever accelerating rate now.
So you prefer a more centralised state that is still beholden to the will of the populace.
The mistake here is in treating the populace as being homogeneous. The reality is that capitalism creates classes. You have a class of people who own capital and use it as their primary source of wealth. These are factory owners, landlords, financial capitalists, and so on. Then you have a second class of people who do not own significant amount of capital and rely on selling their labor as their means of survival. That's the working class. The state fundamentally represents the interests of the class that holds power in society, and a capitalist liberal state represents the interests of the capital owning class.
About China, and I’ll try to word this as unbiased as I can, from what I’ve seen it’s not a state known for complete freedom of speech.
The reality is that every society puts limit on freedom of speech and expression. There’s nothing unique about China in this regard. What makes you think that the west got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong aside from the anchoring bias you experience by virtue of growing up in a particular society? It’s seems clear that China’s approach results in far more social stability than western approach.
The whole narrative of Chinese police stations has been debunked. It's just another piece of western propaganda.
- https://www.mintpressnews.com/false-witnesses-sinister-plots-exposing-cia-connection-chinese-police-station-narrative/285021/
- https://thechinaproject.com/2023/07/20/transnational-repression-and-chinas-overseas-police-stations/
In contrast, people from the country I’m from openly defy and mock ourselves (a bit too much if you ask me).
People in western countries have the freedom of screaming into the void, but not the freedom to translate their grievances into tangible material change. As Eric Li put it, the biggest difference in the political systems between China and US is that in America, you can change the political parties but you can't change policies. In China, you can't change the party but you can change policies.
It's also worth noting that centralization at high level is in no way at odds with local governance. I urge you to read this excellent article explaining how Chinese system encourages decentralized governance and grassroots organization https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/
Similarly, the government itself is also organized based on using grassroots structures as its foundation https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html
Btw when you said “liberal democracy” I took it as a democracy where personal freedoms (speech, privacy etc) are respected at least to the point no one really complains about it.
Liberalism is an ideology with two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on individual freedoms, democracy, and human rights. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.
Liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. The talks of promoting freedom and democracy is just a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations.
This is an excellent primer on the subject https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/