It's not even religious. Their religion says all kinds of really important shit that they completely ignore. They just pick this one specific issue because they hate women and it's a lot easier to say "Uhhhh it's because of my religion, you're discriminating against me!" than it is to say "I hate women and want them to suffer".
I wish it was that few, but sadly trans people can have some really atrocious politics too. I doubt they're a significant factor on this particular scenario, though.
How the fuck do you run someone over with a bulldozer... no matter what i think of it's not coming up good...
It's super illegal.
He's probably doing it to drive up interest and get people to register, then at the end he'll be like "sowwy guys, my lawyer says I can't :( Vote Trump to end this horrible tyranny!"
It's a minor, technical change to the license. It's not a change we should be supporting but it doesn't matter much. The real concerning thing is that this may signal a shift away from focusing on the value to the user.
It doesn't mean that in this case, except perhaps very indirectly.
Vaultwarden is Bitwarden--at least for now, this change may push them apart.
No, technically they already are SaaS company. That's mostly how they make their money.
Also it should be noted "no longer open source" doesn't mean they've done a "our code is now closed and all your passwords are ours" rug pull like some other corporations. This is a technical concern with the license and it no longer meets proper FOSS standards (in other words, it has a restriction on it now that you wouldn't see in, for example, the GPL).
So by and large the change is very minimal, the code is still available, it's still the best option. However, this does matter. It may be a sign of the company changing directions. It's something they should get pushback about.
Honestly, it's Bitwarden right now. This move signals their intent to change that, though.
I don't know about state funded, but corporations really, really hate IA for a lot of reasons.
Which would probably go poorly for us, see: Bush v Gore. A bunch of the lawyers from that case are now on the Supreme Court.
Then why doesn't Nintendo do it themselves?
It's funny how git was carefully designed to be decentralized and resistant to failure from any single node... and we immediately put all our fault tolerance on the back of one corporate-owned entity. Welp.
“In 20 years, the historically developed ethnostate increased its life expectancy three (3) more years than a country which, to this day, lacks a common ethnicity or language and whose development has been uneven at best”
This is a weird ass argument. China was not a historically developed ethnostate during this time period. It had--and still has, much to the disappointment of its leaders--a number of different ethnic groups. Just because the Han dominate modern Chinese society does not mean there are no other ethnic groups there. China did not have a common language at this time, either, though it's working hard to stamp them all out but one.
You thought it relevant enough to completely ignore it until it was pointed out, how sweet.
I was aware of this before you pointed it out, but i didn't feel like it warranted inclusion. That's not the one true measurement, either. It isn't my job, here, to include every possible alternate look at the data. I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here, this isn't a "gotcha". There's still really only one period where India wins this comparison, and it's during a historically dramatic (and, yes, self-inflicted) famine in China.
You quite clearly are licking boots in trying to justify the horrific crimes of Mao and the CCP...
I am doing no such thing. Don't read weird bullshit into my arguments.
Would you kindly read aloud for the class...
These are different numbers and... don't really refute anything i said? "Life expectancy" is different from "life expectancy from birth" and i have been careful to compare like-for-like in this thread.
"...Correlation is causation!”
This is a sound argument and it does mean we can't draw definitive conclusions from this, but these numbers do contradict the narrative that everything in China (or whatever Communist country you like) is horrible.
We’re fucking done here, bootlicker.
Cool.
Isn’t North and South Korea the best comparison for life expectancy versus communism/capitalism?
No, specifically because North Korea is not communist in any meaningful sense of the word. There's no reason to believe it is representative of a generic communist state, and it does not compare well to the majority (to any?) of the communist states out there. Even if you do consider it communist, it is an outlier among those states. It simply does not make sense.
That chart does show North and South Korean life expectancies increasing at a similar rate (until the mid 90s, of course) but that does not mean there's no difference in other states. Yes, life expectancy has been increasing globally but it is not uniformly distributed. China went from "average" to "above average" since the Communist Revolution. India went from "below average" to "below average".
We could also look at Cuba or Vietnam as examples (looking at 2020). They're much smaller and i don't have the same kind of data on hand for them, but compared to the global numbers they're closer to the "more developed countries" than they are to the global average. Again, India, is down in the "less developed countries". If you care, North Korea is at 75 in 2020, above the global average despite... everything going on there. And yes, for the record, South Korea is doing better. They're doing better than most, even better than (for example) Germany.
(I do not know how trustworthy those numbers are for North Korea tbh. I know China's 2020 and beyond numbers have also been criticized but I'm working with what I have.)
And yes, life expectancy is not the be-all, end-all measurement of all value. It does matter, though.
There’s a 7 year gap between them in 1950, and by 1965 there’s a two year gap.
1965 is again the one point at which they actually overlap in any meaningful way. Let's look at that 20 year time period: in 1950, India was at 34, in 1970 it was at 46. In other words, from approximately 20 years after India gained independence its life expectancy increased by 12. In 1950, China was at 40, in 1970 it was at 55. In approximately 20 years since the Communist revolution, life expectancy increased by 15. I think it's relevant that India was starting from further back but i don't think that's the only thing that mattered
As did life expectancy everywhere else in the world at the same time. Must be that worldwide revolution I keep hearing so much about.
Both India and China came a long way from the start of the 20th century and it's a little insulting to suggest they have not. Looking at the statista numbers again, the global average was an appalling 31 in 1900. India was an even more appalling 22, by comparison China was actually doing well at 32. By 2020, the global average has risen to 73 while China is now beating that even more at 76.6 and India is not quite there at 69. (An increase of 44.6 for China, a comparatively better 47 for India, and 42 for the world.) For comparison to that, the United States was at 46 in 1900 and rose to 79 in 2020, a lesser but still not bad 33 years improvement. Western Europe is similar.
Life expectancy has improved globally, but both India and China have beaten the average.
1945 life expectancy in India...
Try looking at, say, 1900 or any of the period prior to that. It was below the global average, it was bad and it was bad for a hundred years. In fact, comparing a hundred years back to 1900 it was actually decreasing in India over those hundred years. China wasn't doing great, but it was doing better prior to the Communist Revolution than India was under Colonial rule.
I'm licking any fucking boots, here, and i'm not about to overlook the evils of colonialism. I am dealing with the numbers.
(In particular, it lies with the aforementioned "four pests" campaign though there were plenty of other horrible decisions made around that time.)
I don't think North vs South Korea is a real comparison at all. First of all, it's not what the post is talking about. Secondly, the North Korean government is not materially Communist in nature. Thirdly, there are some additional factors in play that are depressing North Korea's economic and medical ability, such as sanctions from the West. Not that i think North Korea would beat South Korea without the sanctions or anything, i doubt it would be particularly close.
China is catching up to the US, thanks to the US's insane and dysfunctional health care system. They're not going to beat Europe any time soon, but that's a tough ask. Europe is doing quite well, and has been for a long time.
It's not like China's revolution was smooth sailing, either. I think that's partly why those two are a reasonable comparison, despite being so different in so many ways. They were both doing about as poorly as each other on life expectancy up to their respective revolutions--in fairness, India was doing a little worse by the life expectancy metric but not by much.
Alright then, fine. Pulling out some actual stats:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041350/life-expectancy-china-all-time/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041383/life-expectancy-india-all-time/
At the worst part of the Great Leap Forward, China was still slightly ahead of India: 44.6 to 43. Everywhere else (and to this day), they're meaningfully ahead. (How Communist they are in the modern era may be up for debate, though.) The Chinese Communist Revolution took place over a long period of time but was pretty well concluded by 1949. India got its independence in 1947, at a very similar time. Ten years later is roughly the period we're talking about, but ten years after that China has pulled well ahead of India. In 1970, China's life expectancy was 55 while India's was 46.
In addition to that, let's take a look at conditions before the respective revolutions. In China, life was pretty horrible. Life expectancy was flat and only started going up toward the end of the Communist Revolution. In India, under British rule, it was even worse. This isn't a small detail, it is a major, catastrophic failure of The West and colonialist capitalism in general. If we're saying Communist China was bad because of the Four Pests campaign then what kind of failure does that make Britain, which failed to address the horrendous living conditions in India for decades?