Avatar by @kyudred
Tl;dr:
although they can probably mitigate the effects by moving to one of their 500 houses that’s in a safe zone
That’s why they don’t care.
Climate change hits the poorest first and hardest (see: hurricanes in the Caribbean and SEA).
Billionaires can fly in, enjoy the sunshine, fly out and not get a drop of water on their skin.
And they’ll keep “outrunning” climate change on an individual level, and only feel it when it hurts their net worth*.
At which point, they’ll just re-organize their investments to exploit clean energy subsidies and real estate wherever everyone is fleeing to when the coasts flood.
There is a viable alternative to the problems raised by Bill Gates in his irate letter to computer hobbyists concerning “ripping off” software. When software is free, or so inexpensive that it’s easier to pay for it than to duplicate it, then it won’t be “stolen”.
—Jim Warren, July 1976
The last two paragraphs are tangentially about the fire, and don’t engage with the anger at all - which was the subject of the headline.
It’s like I was watching a news segment where they stop reporting and cut to a talking head who started analyzing political responses to the fire.
How much Chinese companies are donating to relief efforts and the political parallels of an election being delayed (covid before, the fire now) are tangentially related, but in my opinion, that’s no longer focused on “Anger swelling in Hong Kong over deadliest fire in more than 70 years”.
Yep. What’s considered intuitive UI changes depending on what you’re used to.
It’s why Google fought so hard to put Chromebooks in American classrooms.
I believe you. I feel that way about iTunes (trauma intensifies).
But Jellyfin doesn’t have that reputation.
TL;Dr: They want the Hong Kong leader to focus on the renovation company’s possible corruption, not the bamboo that didn’t burn.
The Hong Kong leader responded to the fire by promising to replace (traditional Hong Kong) bamboo scaffolding with (mainland China) steel, because they’re claiming it might have been an accelerant.
Residents argue that this is a distraction (most of the bamboo is still standing) from the real issue: the company doing the renovation/maintenance seems shoddy/corrupt and should be investigated.
At this point, the article gets unfocused and jumps around a lot.
By the end, she’s talking about the upcoming elections being compromised by the Chinese government.
I set up Plex on my mum’s TV and she can just push play. The UI is intuitive (read: familiar) to her.
Jellyfin has a reputation for giving users more control and customizability, but the other side of that coin is that it’s more “fiddly”.
My users don’t want to fiddle.
So Plex has downgraded to [insert the word below feature parity] with Jellyfin.
All of your comments in my inbox are immature attacks.
Since you’re not even trying to engage in an argument with me, I’m blocking you.
Wealthy capitalists, if they’re not based in the US
Are you talking about this part? If so, what I was saying was that billionaires moved to either the US or the three countries I mentioned.
That means the billionaires from China also did not move to Taiwan.
You can also look at the wiki for Taiwan’s billionaires. Only one was born in China and not Taiwan (Hong Kong, specifically), and I’m pretty sure he moved to Taiwan way before the events we’re taking about in this thread.
That would be… so lame.
why the fuck would you bring it up as a reason to think Ukraine isn’t losing?
I was bringing it up as a reason to think the case for Russia winning wasn’t a clear slam dunk.
Resorting to conscription to fill your ranks is not something you do when you’re “obviously winning”.
And before you make a claim about Ukraine resorting to conscription, too, at no point have I claimed Ukraine was “obviously winning” either.
This was the statement I was responding to:
It’s basically an island that all the wealthy capitalists ran away to after China imposed economic democracy.
Here was my response :
Wealthy capitalists, if they’re not based in the US, have moved to [Singapore (or Switzerland, or the UAE)], not to Taiwan.
Where was what I said dishonest or irrelevant?
Edit: reorganized for legibility
It’s possible, but he didn’t say that, and our argument continued without your help.
It is weird that you’re white-knighting so hard for him.
Why are you here?
I was saying that the billionaires were not moving to the island of Taiwan.
You’re talking about US Empire, which, as mentioned in my other responses in this thread, is irrelevant to the physical movements of billionaires.
Even if Taiwan declared itself to be US Empire island #76, it would not change the fact that billionaires did not move to the island of Taiwan.
The NPR article I linked above was citing a Russian source.
The AP article was citing Russian legislation, which I assume (and I could be wrong) is public record.
I usually try to cite multiple sources because one or all may be biased, but it’s less likely that multiple sources will misrepresent reality in exactly the same way.
It is possible, but it is less likely.
I quoted all three in my original response, and he only responded negatively to the one based in UK, implying that he considered the other two met some minimum standard of quality.
He also quoted those same sources in his responses to me. If he thought the same way you do, I would have expected him to dismiss them outright, like you are.
I didn’t say either of those things you’re saying.
This is what I said :
I’m sure Ukraine is in a similar position, but it doesn’t sound like a clearcut win for Russia, either.
I am beginning to remember what made me think Jellyfin wasn’t user friendly.
Maybe it wasn’t the user interface after all.