The Soviet Union was.
Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.
If Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine's existence, why would you think they would recognize a treaty from the the former Soviet Union? Also, in 2009, Russia, not the former Soviet Union, released a joint statement with the U.S. saying the Budapest Memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. And look what happened.
International Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. If one side decides to ignore/violate the treaty there is essentially nothing you can do about it. Your only choices are:
-- War
-- Trade sanctions, which are rarely effective, especially against a large country
The "TikTok ban" is, on its face, unconstitutional.
So, a foreign government, that is hostile to the U.S., can set up operation in the U.S., do whatever they want, no matter how harmful, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
There is no sane interpretation of the constitution which agrees with that.
Google also supported the GDPR even though they have since paid major fines because of it
Google supported the GDPR because it doesn't matter to them.
When you have as much money as Google, laws no longer apply to you. You can literally do anything you want, and if anyone tries to stop you, you just keep throwing more lawyers at them until the problem goes away. Or bribe a few more politicians to get the law changed. In the rare case when this doesn't work, you agree to pay a fine that amounts to less that the profits you have made in the last 27 minutes.
A Stronghold spokesperson said in a statement that its operations actually clean up land and water in the area by using waste coal left behind by historic coal production in the region.
No. They took coal that was laying on the ground and put it into the air. They just moved the pollution from one location to another.
.... the stuff that's typically present in places which have had success stories with drug decriminalization campaigns.
The only "success" with drug decriminalization campaigns has been short term only. There have been ZERO instances of drug decriminalization that have had long term success.
The idea that you can get rid of all the problems of drug use through decriminalization is silly, childish, wishful thinking.
I've decided to leave the program upon experiencing this Edge "bug". No way do I trust that it was an innocent mistake that's now been rectified.
This "bug" doesn't even make sense. How could this even happen? Why would Edge be accessing **ANYTHING** that is associated with Chrome? Is Microsoft making some sort of assumption that everyone has Chrome installed on their computer? (I don't). WTF?
I sense this is like Google Glass from a couple of years ago. A solution in search of problem with technology that's not quite there yet.
The solution is not there yet.
There is no "there".
How? You can't copyright the algorithm and, last I knew, in the UK you cannot patent software. So what legal method does he have to control who works on Bitcoin?
From the article:
It is seeking a declaration that Wright does not own the copyright to the white paper that first proposed Bitcoin and did not author the original code, and an injunction preventing him from saying otherwise.
Why must I fight Firefox every update to make it look and act the way I want it to?
Because the Firefox devs (and entire Mozilla management) are arrogant assholes. Which is a shame, because I actually like Firefox and have been using it since version 1.0
Still, it's a wired connection.
T-Mobile is a wireless provider - it's a 5G cell service.
Trying to provide "broadband internet" on a cell network is beyond retarded.
Maybe... just maybe... its actually because of the "algorithms"
Yes. Fucking Al Gore and his Al Gore Ithms.
Fewer people maybe, but it seems like more bots, at least on X. That may accelerate the problem.
How many people actually have something to say? That's the real problem.
Most posts on social media (by people who are not advertising something or pushing some agenda) are just chatting with their circle of friends. And that's OK. That's what it SHOULD be. That's the whole point of "social media". But there's no profit in that.
Shitposting that is sensational, inflammatory and controversial draws more viewers, which allows the social media companies to say to advertisers "LOOK AT OUR NUMBERZ!! PAY US MORE MONIEZ!!" and the actual usefulness of social media is slowly destroyed.
All of this social media bullshit can't go away soon enough, as far as I'm concerned, but they aren't going away any time soon. They've got a lot of money invested and there is still lots of money to be made from people who are vain and stupid. They will keep throwing shit against the wall until none of it sticks. Eventually, Twitter/Facebook/etc. will just be bots trolling each other. Which will actually be sort of fun to watch, for a while.
Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton
