My first distrobution was the good old Ubuntu for a laptop that I used for school. I stuck with that for 2-3 years. During that time I really, really wanted to try out new distros, but I didn't want to lose my files and such, so I just stuck with it. During this time I also changed my desktop's os to Ubuntu, but I am not sure when I did it.
After I got a Laptop due to the previous being old and broken, I tried out Arch Linux and grew to love it more than Ubuntu, so I changed out my desktop's os to that as well when I got a new ssd and was migrating to it. I used Arch for another year or two, before my laptop had a disk failure and I had to reinstall. I installed Debian onto it, since I was feeling lazy and didn't want to go through the mess of installing Arch again. And then later I also installed Windows on it with dualboot for games that didn't want to work with Proton.
So basically I now use Arch on the desktop and Debian/Windows on laptop.
I was definitely more active on Reddit, since it had the niche subs I wanted to discuss on. Lemmy has more "generic" content, since it doesn't have the user base to grow those niche communities.
No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don't break other human rights.
I mean it kinda does with the whole "freedom of expression" thing it has.
I could be wrong on this, but that's how I interperted it.
Because of those pesky human rights that mandate "freedom of religion" or whatever.
Could you elaborate, since I have absolutely no clue what connections significant enough you are making to say this.
Before agriculture people were like that, but as people settled down it created a class system. Then people got more powerful and such and states began to be created.
During this time (Around 4000bce and 400ce) feudalism wasn't really a thing, but after the Western Roman Empire fell around 400ce the power vacuum it created lead to the creation of feudalism. This was because of several factors, but I can't remember them all right now.
But money did exist even before the creation feudalism, since the Romans and the Egyptians did have money. Even in Mesopotamia currency was used. And even if money didn't exist trade was still being done with valueable things like resources and other commodities, which lead to those things becoming a de-facto currency.
So basically pre-agriculture was like tribes that shared their stuff and such, but after agriculture not so much. Of course this isn't a one-answer-fits-all thing, since there are always exceptions.
Sorry for the long ramble. I just got really into writing this thing. Also I could be wrong on some things, since I am writing from memory.
Mainly mercantilism which just means that everyone wants to only export and importing stuff is literally the worst thing in the world. Mercantilism also had a lot more state restrictions on it compared to capitalism.
Feudalism mainly died out in the 1400's when more of the power was centralised to the king instead of their vassals.
Let's hope we have better luck next time I guess.
Oh damn, an article containing a topic about Russia and Cuba. I hope this post will contain a civil conversation about the topic without it derailing into a giant fighting pit about the United States.
The first agreement collapsed due to the seperatist taking over an airport in Donetsk and saying they won't follow it anymore.
The second Minsk agreement basically said "Stop fighting and Ukraine gets full control of the seperatist areas after elections and a special territory status for the areas". After offering them the special status the seperatists just said no.
It was never meant to be an equivalence. I made it to draw a rough picture of how a person can have some good ideas, but be a person no one wants to associate with due their other ideas.
They have brought up some good points, but the good points they make are over shadowed by the whole genocide denial and "dunking on libs".
The following example is not meant to represent hexbear users, but to show an example of how I could see it.
Think of a fascist who brings up some good examples of modern problems in about 1/10 of their messages, while the rest are talking about how Mussolini was actually good, since he brought up the living standard in Italy and expanded the public sector. And when someone brings up the bad things Mussolini did, the fascist just says "It's clearly western propaganda".
You wouldn't want to read their messages, since they are full of this fascist apologetic garbage, and the good points they bring up are ignored because of their other opinions.
It doesn't matter how good willed your opinions are if no one wants to associate with you.
Yes I did say that.
Firstly. The main cause of concern with depleted uranium is that according to some research it can linger around the area where they were used, and give people depleted uranium poisoning. Note that there hasn't yet been any concrete evidence to prove this is the case.
Secondly. Ukraine themselves asked for these weapons, so they have most likely gone over the risks of using depleted uranium ammunition and have deemed their usefulness to outweigh the potential health down sides that comes from using depleted uranium.
Thirdly. The rounds given to Ukraine are armor piercing rounds, so the chances of them being fired at buildings are minimal, thus minimizing the possibility of them affecting people if they really were as dangerous as some research tells us.
So what's the difference between lead, tungsten, and depleted uranium? They all cause cancer and other symptoms, and both tungsten and depleted uranium must be decontaminated if the tank carrying them is destroyed.
And from what I've read you will die of the toxicity before you will die of the radiation.
In the follow follow up report they said that the risks of the DU dust causing any harm are minimal.
Sounds plausible, but wouldn't it cause the same types of effects in Bosnia if that were the case?
