The comment section on this article is a little bit of hell.

Also, I get that this is part of Microsoft’s duties for its own OS security. But the role it has seems to be a bit too large. Currently it seems, even though it is seemingly working for the benefit of Ukraine in the conflict, that they could choose to aid Russia at any time. I don’t think I like them having such capacity. Being able to interfere in such events in such a drastic degree, if they choose to. Interference in politics in such a direct manner, even if aid with ‘intelligence’ is one of their offerings, cannot really be removed from their capability here. These are basics of state… just what are modern politicians doing. I’d say it is not so much the governments in specific places (like the US) running their regions anymore.

I don’t think China cares. Such places, the powers will sink down their entire region for ‘glory’.

I see

This sounds like the family basically has given an ‘okay’ to the authorities doing whatever to him, however illegal it may be.

Can’t say I’m surprised, my family is similar. Not as well off financially, but similar.

Pretending like you care about the guy… how rotten can these people be.

Technicians (not limited to people working with computers) always have it hard when they work purely in support capacity. This is like draining then fir everything they’ve got and looking for an opportunity to beat them down further so they stay in their abused state.

Strength and power are not the same. Strength is often portrayed as the ability to exert force, or to make others do what you want, but those who have worked hardest to build real strength (which is different from muscle mass, something which is completely unrelated) know that strength is the ability to do things on your own without support or resources. Making others do things for you? That’s power. These are not so much quirks of language as they are natural phenomena which are both referenced in their real natures as well as confused and mixed up often.

These ‘strongmen’ are some of the weakest humans in existence.

That said, it is funny and logical. As a person who has not made the decision referenced here, it is funny to watch those who have made the decision. It is essentially resigning your fate to those who want to harm you, it is putting your utmost trust, and sole trust, in those who want to create problems for you. It is even more comedic when such persons who make the decision then take up the banner of legitimacy—everyone else who hasn’t made the same decision is problematic.

Simple logic is hard to use apparently. A person who wilfully tries to harm you persistently, then promises to back off from those tendencies if you obey them, are only going to increase the problems they cause for you if you aid them in… causing problems for you. Funnily enough these people then attribute such events to unavoidable reality. No, they’re probably too embarrassed to admit to themselves that they contributed to it themselves. In doing so, they make it pretty much impossible to rectify the horrible situation, instead relying on the same forces they call problematic to make things better for everyone.

If these ‘strongmen’ are simply seen for the fools they are, everyone around will only see just how incapable they are. Instead you have loads of people who don’t even buy into the ideological horseshit each of these particular persons may have, support them to get them to back off a little bit in the extreme short term, only make it easier for these ‘strongmen’ to create much more severe and long lasting problems for them… which wouldn’t have been possible without their help in the first place. How tragic…but my sympathy only lies with those who did not contribute to such things but suffered regardless.

Dealing with these ‘strongmen’ who are everywhere rather than just at the heads of some nations is also a good thing to do. After all, it is not good to see them go unpunished after messing around, and causing problems, just so they could tell themselves that they have not chosen badly all their lives, which results in them not being able to do anything on their own despite not having real, natural circumstances preventing them from doing so.

In the end I just settled with the logic based ones like minesweeper and sudoku. F-droid has a good version each (and more than one maybe).

PlanetCon is a decent strategy game on its basic settings. I haven’t customised it but have had a fair amount of fun in it. But it is nothing perfect, do not expect too much out of it. If you learn how to not attract the ire of all AI opponents simultaneously though, you can have short bursts of decent strategy enjoyment.

No wonder they sold it at 95% off on steam recently. Did they at least complete the story of this one? It was supposed to be a mobile-like live service thing (whatever is wrong with providing a complete story in one go?).

I’ve only really plaued Arkham Asylum from the Rocksteady Arkham series. It is a decent one, I found it easier to get into than the hour of Arkham City I played. Perhaps I’ll try that again sometime. Though recently I got into Hand of Fate which has a similar combat system.

This is very interesting. I’m going to start my own creative commons fiction series at some point which will take up most of my time, but I was also thinking of a more casual series of books which are more mainstream in nature that what I’ll be writing about in the creative commons one. So that I can sustain my soon-to-be meagre lifestyle of needs. My intention was to look for a publisher which is both customer and writer friendly. After I have it written, I can check if this place shows interest in publishing it.

If you already have a strong community which has brought about change, you do not need more. Merely continue to be a strong community and deal with problems which are bound to arise at a local level, and you will keep bringing about change. For example, even if the current generation is into good things, the next generation of your own always have the chance of calling you a bunch of fools for not exploiting the vulnerable; they will call themselves greater than you eho came before (a common trend; people like to fool themselves to seem less pathetic to themselves and, they hope, others). What you built is then destroyed from the inside.

When you force ‘change for good’, revolution or otherwise, you bring about the ‘perception of change’ rather than change itself. All the problems are actually swept under the carpet, out of sight. It just happens that is the very reason for a lot of the biggest problems in the world right now; even if all the visible people take on the banner of legitimacy and say there is no problem, there is no doubt among the people who have been pushed in the lower, oppressed corners of each region—out of sight—of the injustice and cruelty caused.

The end goal, if you want world peace, is the change in yourself, itself. You don’t need to go outside and make your place a ‘platform’ for change, because the world is not generous. They will, instead, definitely focus on destroying your ‘strong community’ than being open to the idea of change. Rather, the existence of such a community is enough to incite hatred.

If you use the mentioned ‘platform’ for change through co-operation, the wicked of the world will only see you as fools. Their methods have worked for them; causing pain for others for their own gain has led them to lead better lives, in their opinion. Each and every one of my own family is like this; they instead take every opportunity to co-operate as an opportunity to harm. The ‘neutrals’ who go along with the flow, getting them to your side is not a victory either. It just takes evil to be dominant again (and evil likes to try to dominate) and they switch sides all over again. The change is superficial. On the other hand, go the violent route, and you will find it quite impossible to not succumb to the idea of the necessary evil, and the lesser evil, to prevail. But when you do this, all you do is ‘sacrifice’ those who are even less powerless. You are not so much removing evil as much as replacing evil with another evil. There is a real tendency in such cases to do the same as the evil predecessors have done; but from the other side. You may have destroyed those ones in the process, but in the end you essentially joined their hand. It is a real sore topic for most because trolls also like to maliciously bring up this point, but did the revolutions of the world really end all problems completely, or did they sweep many problems out of sight to claim victory for many of the previously oppressed, essentially befoming opponents to the rest? Of course, the method I mentioned also aims at non co-operation, but it aims at ending the idea of having gains at the cost of someone. It keeps making it harder to do that till it becomes impossible; to survive, such evildoers are forced to do better then. At the very least, I can say with confidence that if you have enough of such people who do not have power over anyone while not letting people have power over them, it becomes impossible for such a place to start an invading war. Rather, starting war is usually a means to distract one from a place’s internal problems; instead they will be forced to deal with the same problems as they’re thrown in the faces of the people who cause them rather than pushing those problems out of sight so they can say they live good lives—and invade so they can distract themselves, when they have nothing better to do. In the end, instead of people saying how problems are impossible to be fixed, you have people actually solving problems because they also have a stake in it; they’re no longer able to push the problems they create on others and be done with it.

Instead of an ‘external’ problem, it is the ‘internal’ problem. Limiting yourself to making a strong community itself is the problem, whereas if you see yourselves as part of one world; after you bring about change in yourself, you continue living in a good way which forces other people to live in a good way if they want their problems to end. It literally speads like an infection till people cannot do evil anymore. The reason sustained world peace is impossible is because there will always be the next generations who will think themselves superior for exploiting the vulnerable, and there will always be places where people give up instead of following through with trying to be good; accepting the lesser evil at the cost of ‘a few’ instead. The grim reality that no one talks about is all the problems in the world, a very big portion, I’d even say most of it, is caused because we live in a world which has chosen a lesser evil over and over again. If people simply chose ‘no evil’ over ‘lesser evils’, the bigger evils would be stifled enough that they couldn’t run around free doing, essentially, whatever they want. The current big evils are, almost always, born out of the lesser evils of the past, rather. And the current suppressed are from the powerless who were on the wrong side—the cost of past ‘peace’—instead of the wealthy and the evildoers, like the ones choosing ‘lesser evil’ in the last claimed.

The natural result.

To think they actually gave one of the reasons of invading Ukraine as ‘fighting Nazis’

Once EVs become the main type of vehicles sold, sellers will lower quality to ‘encourage’ you to replace them more often.

Every industry starts off like this and ends off like that.

Counter-point: It depends on a decision made early in life. Whether that decision is influenced by observations or upbringing is irrelevant. As it stands, most people have not subconsciously chosen (follow it long enough and it becomes a non-absolute but pretty hard to break subconscious compulsion) to be this way.

As a kid, I had chosen this. I was treated like a person whose only purpose was to be taken advantage of, to be harmed for others’ gain, from all sides as a result. Then I made the other choice due to pressure. Then I saw that causing harm is not all good for yourself like people pretend it is, so I rejected it hard no matter the consequence. The result was people kept crossing the boundary of decency and even crime, but nobody cared because apparently I made that choice myself and it was only natural. If such things are not dealt with, only the few crazy ones will choose empathy for more than what brings one gain in some form… because it is simply not worth it. Rather you need to abandon the concept of worth to really choose this to the end.

It is not so much the brain being wired for not feeling empathy (I’d argue that the hunan body is instead inclined to live a life the opposite of cruel; to be compassionate instead), rather when the pain starts, and stays constant (for years), it remains hard to hold on. The problem arises in not knowing how to deal with these things. Learning from observation while not knowing anything is an incredibly inefficient and painful method that also leaves you vulnerable, and the malicious love to target the vulnerable ones most of all. It is extremely difficult to hold on to such a decision, and those who make such decisions half-heartedly only give up, usually.

On the other hand, choosing these things makes one more capable in life than most humans consider possible (in modern times at least) in many things. The benefits of being capable are usually attributed to being better suited at something innately, but there is a reason that most people who are considered extraordinary geniuses in their fields, apparently inhumanly talented, are also kind hearted.

More spiritualism will only take us further away from world peace. Because spiritualism is usually guided by a set of guidelines which a person ‘should’ follow, and are more or less absolute which little room for deviation. Being less reliant of what one does not make on their own may very well be a path to personally finding answers; but spiritualism is a horrible way to go about it if solving problems and resolving conflicts is the real goal.

This is because there won’t be only one form of spiritualism; like there are many currently, many more may pop up in the future. And when there is even a slight hint of peacefulness, each and every one of these subtly, usually passive aggressively get others to join them while simultaneously being extremely suspicious of the other groups doing the same. This is the best case, usually it just leads to ugly hatred, eventually.

An example of how it will take us away from world peace? As you put forth the reason yourself. People’s ‘sins’. That is very aggressive, passively. In the end, disagreement with a person’s already made conclusion of ‘sin’ can only lead to argument which does not solve any real purpose related to peace, and making such a conclusion only incites disagreement from many who are directly accused as well as those who aren’t but recognise how it is an action which will only destroy peace.

Started Mech Armada, a roguelite which is turn based and with a fairly good customisation system which gives full freedom in making units from what you ‘find’ (pay to unlock randomly by paying a resource which is also used for other things so you have to choose) in the run.

Required a fair bit of learning through experimentation but now I, at least keep winning the first map and have just reached the boss of the second. Without any of the ‘roguelite’ bonuses. Which you can unlock with a separate currency earned. I chose not to unlock anything to see how viable it is without unlocks. It is decent. That said, there are more pieces added to the ‘gacha’ as you play. Through an experience system. The experience system carries over between runs but is not really a ‘boost’ since it just unlocks a bigger pool of more varied parts.

Thinking of dignity is one way to come across the answer. That said, while practically impossible to bring about, the situation where world peace and everyone’s dignity is maintained will also bring about a total end to conflict of physical harm.

the problem is not so much the billionaires itself. The existence of billionaires is a problem, but it is the manifestation to the extreme of the real problem which caused their existence.

If you do not revamp the method humans have followed time and time again, you will yet again have the owners, the kings and nobility, the wealthy (that’s the billionaires). These things have the cause. The reason the problem remains because removing the cause is quite unacceptable to humans.

Most people do not make the choice to not gain by causing others pain, however indirect. While that is not the root cause, looking into that can shed light a bit into the real nature of the problem (and of course, how to remove it, and them. Their ownership of extreme wealth, that is).

Short answer: not possible.

Long answer: If no one in the world desires power over anyone else for anything, there you have it. World peace. But people usually do not make that choice (I’m guessing at the momebt more than 95% of the people in the world have made the other choice), and forcing people to not have power is also having power over them and making them choose it. So it is not possible.

But you can contribute to world peace yourself. Have no power over anyone while simultaneously do not let anyone have power over you, and you make the world inch a bit more towards a peaceful state. Because not only do you not contribute to harming others, but you also make it incredibly hard for those who do harm others to do what they do. By pushing the problems which they create and push on others (like you, for example), right back on them. Dealing with the consequences of problems wilfully created by people keeps them too busy to create more problems, unless they defiantly create more problems. In which case you, again, do not let them have power over you and push the problems they created right back at them. So the key is, ironically, non co-operation to eventually get a world of peace.

… no one said it is easy. If they did, they said so without knowledge, or (and it usually is) they lied.

Thank you for sharing this link

Of course. Really it is the opposite of ‘better’