1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, definitely not normative.

Neither the UK nor Iceland were pirates when the 200 mile zone was being established by the conflict.

2
the-new-style 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, the 200 mile zone was a result of The Cod Wars

The Cod Wars were a series of confrontations between the United Kingdom and Iceland during the 20th century, specifically from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, over fishing rights in the North Atlantic [1][2]. These disputes were sparked by Iceland's unilateral expansion of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which is the area of the sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources [4].

The Cod Wars are generally identified as three main conflicts [2]. The First Cod War lasted from 1958 to 1961, when Iceland extended its fishery limits from 4 to 12 nautical miles [2]. The Second Cod War occurred from 1972 to 1973, when Iceland further extended its limits to 50 nautical miles [2]. The Third Cod War took place from 1975 to 1976, after the temporary agreement that ended the Second Cod War expired and Iceland further extended its limits [2].

During these conflicts, Britain sent Royal Navy warships to protect its trawlers, leading to serious incidents of vessels being rammed, live rounds being fired, and seamen from both Britain and Iceland sustaining injuries [4]. Despite the confrontations, the disputes were eventually settled through diplomatic means. Each of the disputes ended with an Icelandic victory, and the 200-mile EEZ was officially confirmed in international law in the United Nations in 1982 [1][4].

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
[2] https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/february/cod-wars-and-lessons-maritime-counterinsurgency
[3] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-were-cod-wars
[4] https://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't understand your gripe.

External AI bots are not running so are not allowed.

Bots running by the site operators exist and therefore are not "allowed" either.

And somehow you discriminated between external AI bots (which are not present) and those run by the operators.

I'm curious and would be interested in seeing more detail.

As you have identified them, why not link to some?

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

if A = "The need for top processors, enormous amount of memory or superior GPU"

and B = "ineffective software overbloated with modern bloatware frameworks and overall programming paradigm that prevail in corporate sector"

you're asserting A => B

but this is false

if it were true, then corporate PC sales would be increasing in line with such new devices

however, that is not happening

Corporate PC sales have not flatlined but have been experiencing a decline. According to Gartner, sales of personal computers were expected to fall 9.5% in 2022 due to supply chain constraints and geopolitical challenges. Business PC demand was expected to fall 7.2% year-on-year in 2022[1]. In 2023, AMD, a major chip designer, reported that sales remained flat for its data center business, indicating a slowdown in the enterprise sector[2]. The IDC also expected PC monitor sales to decrease over the remainder of 2022 and in 2023[4]. However, despite these declines, PC sales remain above pre-pandemic levels[3].

Citations:
[1] https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/technology/2022/07/05/global-pc-sales-to-drop-95-in-2022-because-of-multiple-challenges/
[2] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/amd-revenues-fall-as-pc-cpu-sales-plummet-and-data-center-business-slows/
[3] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pc-sales-remain-above-pre-pandemic-levels-despite-recent-declines
[4] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/hardware/450152-global-pc-monitor-sales-flatline.html
[5] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/10/pc-sales-flatline-after-2-year-slump-so-thats.html

4
the-new-style 4 points ago +4 / -0

let us all know how to identify them then

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

tbh it's one of those things that one considers common knowledge in these circles.

I happy you posted it, it's not like it's my material.

2
the-new-style 2 points ago +2 / -0

I meant more in the general sense. He's going there as King Libertarian.

2
the-new-style 2 points ago +2 / -0

Enemies almost always act cordial to each other in meetings

2
the-new-style 2 points ago +2 / -0

there have been multiple posts on the topic

but what do you want people to say when there is no info

"come one everyone, let's wildly speculate"

when in all likelihood it is a mass chimp-out

0
the-new-style 0 points ago +1 / -1

you know what it means, you just want to whine like a girl

4
the-new-style 4 points ago +4 / -0

Build Trust Back Better

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

until it affects them directly ...

which, of course, will be too late

5
the-new-style 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's 1920s Germany all over again

Jews using foreign loans buying up property from desperate locals suffering from cash flow issues stemming from high inflation.

3
the-new-style 3 points ago +3 / -0

rookie numbers

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was discovered in 1938 and introduced for medical use in 1939. From about 1940 to 1971, the medication was given to pregnant women in the incorrect belief that it would reduce the risk of pregnancy complications and losses. In 1971, DES was shown to cause clear-cell carcinoma, a rare vaginal tumor, in those who had been exposed to this medication in utero.

By 2007, it was only used in the treatment of prostate cancer and breast cancer. In 2011, Hoover and colleagues reported on adverse health outcomes linked to DES including infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preeclampsia, preterm birth, stillbirth, infant death, menopause prior to age 45, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and vaginal cancer.

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't know but I would also bet that the contents of each tweet is hashed in order to find regular spammers. You might have encountered "that comment has already been posted" on some forums. It would be retarded to not do that.

1
the-new-style 1 point ago +1 / -0

Joi was never truly emotionally attached to K

it was a machine, machines don't have emotions

Joi - Jerk Off instructions

read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" instead of goyslop movies

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›