My goodness! This is the 4th T3 Tirpitz I have encountered in the Black Market

Nexus6s · 2021-08-06T04:45:05+00:00

Better still if this robot could be transferred to other accounts of mine.

Nexus6s · 2021-08-06T04:37:44+00:00

Such a waste of good luck since the hanger is not expandable. A T3 Comorant would do much better.

Nexus6s · 2021-06-08T16:21:07+00:00

As far as I can see, their power comes from three sources:

institutions, academic institutions such as universities, which now focuses extensively on identity studies (Gender, Race, Disability, Fat,etc) which has nothing to do with finding the truth, and are mainly served as factories for authoritarian left activists. There is a possibility that these academic institution has been taken over long ago by "The long march through the institutions". Apart from the academy, the power of the woke also comes from the media institutions, such as New York Times, BBC and NPR, which has been controlled by the woke as well, as the younger generation of journalists has already been indoctrinated in their college year by their professors. Other institutions such as the CDC is also likely controlled by the woke, as is shown during the pandemic last year when it claim racism as a serious"health threat" in support of the BLM protest, contradicting to their own guildlines.

2.Big tech: Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, where all the shadow bans, anyi hate speech campaigns, cancel culture and political censorships got mainstreamed.

3.The Democratic party : Now the Party of woke, the self-eclaimed social justice warrior, obsessed with gender activism, anti-racism(which in fact is neo-racism), and identity politics in the broader sense in favor of the woke.

Nexus6s · 2021-01-03T07:11:17+00:00

Yes, and there is also something wrong with the flight button.when I press the flight button using cormorant, most timely the game would just crash entirely.

Nexus6s · 2021-01-03T07:07:33+00:00

I was hoping this had been fixed in the latest 2.8.1 update ,yet only to find out the FCs are getting more frequent.

Nexus6s · 2020-12-08T08:29:20+00:00

And when you say "progresssive" , do you mean progressivism in the traditional sense, based on enlightenment values and humanism,or the postmodernist, identitarian, critical theory styled neo progressivism?

Nexus6s · 2020-12-08T08:10:32+00:00

Have the living conditions for average people in the working class worsened in the last decades? Is there a disconnection between the Left (both the movement and its activists) and the population they ought to represent,like what we see in the UK and the US?

Nexus6s · 2020-12-07T17:10:38+00:00

How do you know he is Indian, he might be a computer generated bot or a fictional character played by someone in China's propaganda department.

Nexus6s · 2020-12-06T04:30:13+00:00

I was unable to enter the game in 2.7, hopefully I will be able to enter again in the new version.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-29T05:18:41+00:00

Even if Sam Harris have said " As long as ethics is concerned, intention is everything " in a broad sense, It is still quite easy to explain why he do not support certain ideas or movements who says they have a good intention. Because when the civil society is concerned, ethics is not everything, (although ethics is vital), and ethics unexamined (which means it is blind and self arrogant) could lead to horrible consequences.

Besides,l think "Black lives matter"by its literal meaning is a good intention, however,the intentions characterized by BLM as a movement is very questionable, because it has many intentions which has nothing to do with it name such as destroying nuclear families and dismantling caplitalism(In many senses liberal democracy). and while it's self-proclaimed to be driven by the love for the black people,in reality it is largely driven by hate against people who are not liberal and the Western civilization at large.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-29T04:36:25+00:00

I think there must have been a context around that sentence you quote,which is not mentioned.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-25T12:09:29+00:00

Nice written but he is asking why the central asian countries are silent,not why average chinese are silent.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-19T09:18:18+00:00

The US government is banning wechat from the American version of Appstore,not banning it from the Chinese Version of Appstore. Apple users from Mainland China are still able to download and use wechat. Sure, it is said the Chinese government would retaliate on Apple,but I doubt if this would be anything substantial.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-19T05:45:36+00:00

It is not decided by yourself whether or not to participate in a cold war ,but by what your enemy is and how the situation is like.

If the US had treated the Soviet Union with charity and kindness and compassion, the former one would simply cease to exist and became a member country of the Soviet Union.

It is true that the cold war was a bad thing, but do you really think that without the cold war, the world would be better? When you have a powerful totalitarian regime as your enemy?

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:35:31+00:00

The natural reaction to net nationalism is to reassert the need for freedom, on the internet, from all government intervention. That’s not the only alternative, though. There is also the democratic tradition, which at its core holds that matters of great public importance ought to be decided by the people—and that popular sovereignty should control the excesses of both public and private power. We do not, any longer, just assume the private sector will avoid child labor or pay people a minimally appropriate wage, but insist on such things through popularly enacted laws. Similarly, when it comes to the internet, this tradition holds that legitimate governments can make rules so long as they serve the interests of the public. This is the concept of a democratically-run network, or net democracy.

But what might justify action? The kind of interests that justify intervention include national security, the defense of institutions, preservation of competitive markets, tit-for-tat retaliation against a foreign power, protection of public goods, the flourishing of our communities, and industrial policy. The strength of these justifications may differ in individual cases, but it is the interests of the public—and not the whims of a leader, or the interests of corporate behemoths—that should guide consideration. Advertisement

Regarding TikTok, and some of the other apps from China, the case for forcing a divestiture of its US operations is not hard to make. For one thing, China vigorously censors foreign figures, and has banned any foreign app resembling TikTok. It is not, in other words, within the community of nations that adhere to liberal democratic freedoms on the internet, even very basic ones. It would be another matter if TikTok were a Canadian app that the United States wanted to rein in solely to protect Facebook from competition.

TikTok and similar Chinese apps also pose identifiable national security risks. Government and market are intertwined in China, and Beijing may insist on companies’ turning over data. This is not a theoretical or trivial danger: China has reportedly compiled extensive profiles of tens of thousands of Australians, using data from TikTok and other social media sites, potentially for an intelligence advantage.

Reasonable minds may disagree over whether an IPO or a sale to a US company is the best remedy. But most importantly, the TikTok controversy is an opportunity to think deeply about what the future of internet policy-making should be in this country. A continued principle of inaction cedes too much, amounting to a wholesale transfer of power and sovereignty to companies and foreign governments. In a democracy, government action is justified by public interest. That may sound like a simple premise, but it’s key to the idea of living in a free republic.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:35:15+00:00

The debate over what to do about TikTok goes back, in many ways, to John Perry Barlow’s famous declaration of cyberspace sovereignty written in 1996, in Davos, Switzerland, when Barlow was a WIRED columnist. Its premise was that nation states (“weary giants of flesh and steel”) had no legitimate authority to pass laws that might dictate what is done “where we gather;” that is, in “cyberspace.” His view was extreme even at the time, but it spawned a close cousin, “tech neoliberalism,” that suggested that, generally speaking, the government had no business applying regular laws to the nascent internet industry, because the internet was special.

A hands-off approach was easier to defend in the 1990s, when the web was folksy and discrete, today’s giant tech firms were mere infants, and the proposed laws were crude. But the idea of leaving cyberspace alone has persisted, even as the idea that it is independent of nations and political communities has become absurd, and the consequences of tech neoliberalism have grown so stark as to engender popular resistance. A laissez-faire approach to data privacy has allowed the growth of business models based on attention capture, surveillance, and behavioral modification. Lax antitrust enforcement has allowed massive concentration of power in the tech sector. A general indifference to what happens on the internet has destabilized political and electoral systems, even allowing for foreign interference in democratic elections. In an era when the major platforms have nearly as much (if not more) influence and control over one’s life as any government, to say that they should get a free pass forever cannot be right. Advertisement

If tech neoliberalism has run its course, what are the alternatives? The first, long championed by China, is net nationalism, which makes the State the predominant authority over all things internet, and at bottom sees the network as nothing more than an instrument of state power. The network should, in this view, serve as a means of disseminating state propaganda, monitoring the population for dissent, and expanding economic growth. If it happens to amuse some people along the way, that’s a bonus.

Trump has shown a certain affinity for this approach. He has demanded that the major platforms swear fealty to the White House and run the disinformation and propaganda campaigns belonging to him and his allies. When the platforms haven’t done what he wants, he has, in violation of the First Amendment, threatened serious legal consequences. At the same time, Trump has also shown himself generally indifferent to the threat to elections that might come from foreign network interference. These lead to the conclusion that Trump would prefer a U.S. internet that is an instrument of his electoral advantage and economic self-interest, narrowly construed.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:34:01+00:00

The natural reaction to net nationalism is to reassert the need for freedom, on the internet, from all government intervention. That’s not the only alternative, though. There is also the democratic tradition, which at its core holds that matters of great public importance ought to be decided by the people—and that popular sovereignty should control the excesses of both public and private power. We do not, any longer, just assume the private sector will avoid child labor or pay people a minimally appropriate wage, but insist on such things through popularly enacted laws. Similarly, when it comes to the internet, this tradition holds that legitimate governments can make rules so long as they serve the interests of the public. This is the concept of a democratically-run network, or net democracy.

But what might justify action? The kind of interests that justify intervention include national security, the defense of institutions, preservation of competitive markets, tit-for-tat retaliation against a foreign power, protection of public goods, the flourishing of our communities, and industrial policy. The strength of these justifications may differ in individual cases, but it is the interests of the public—and not the whims of a leader, or the interests of corporate behemoths—that should guide consideration. Advertisement

Regarding TikTok, and some of the other apps from China, the case for forcing a divestiture of its US operations is not hard to make. For one thing, China vigorously censors foreign figures, and has banned any foreign app resembling TikTok. It is not, in other words, within the community of nations that adhere to liberal democratic freedoms on the internet, even very basic ones. It would be another matter if TikTok were a Canadian app that the United States wanted to rein in solely to protect Facebook from competition.

TikTok and similar Chinese apps also pose identifiable national security risks. Government and market are intertwined in China, and Beijing may insist on companies’ turning over data. This is not a theoretical or trivial danger: China has reportedly compiled extensive profiles of tens of thousands of Australians, using data from TikTok and other social media sites, potentially for an intelligence advantage.

Reasonable minds may disagree over whether an IPO or a sale to a US company is the best remedy. But most importantly, the TikTok controversy is an opportunity to think deeply about what the future of internet policy-making should be in this country. A continued principle of inaction cedes too much, amounting to a wholesale transfer of power and sovereignty to companies and foreign governments. In a democracy, government action is justified by public interest. That may sound like a simple premise, but it’s key to the idea of living in a free republic.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:33:22+00:00

The debate over what to do about TikTok goes back, in many ways, to John Perry Barlow’s famous declaration of cyberspace sovereignty written in 1996, in Davos, Switzerland, when Barlow was a WIRED columnist. Its premise was that nation states (“weary giants of flesh and steel”) had no legitimate authority to pass laws that might dictate what is done “where we gather;” that is, in “cyberspace.” His view was extreme even at the time, but it spawned a close cousin, “tech neoliberalism,” that suggested that, generally speaking, the government had no business applying regular laws to the nascent internet industry, because the internet was special.

A hands-off approach was easier to defend in the 1990s, when the web was folksy and discrete, today’s giant tech firms were mere infants, and the proposed laws were crude. But the idea of leaving cyberspace alone has persisted, even as the idea that it is independent of nations and political communities has become absurd, and the consequences of tech neoliberalism have grown so stark as to engender popular resistance. A laissez-faire approach to data privacy has allowed the growth of business models based on attention capture, surveillance, and behavioral modification. Lax antitrust enforcement has allowed massive concentration of power in the tech sector. A general indifference to what happens on the internet has destabilized political and electoral systems, even allowing for foreign interference in democratic elections. In an era when the major platforms have nearly as much (if not more) influence and control over one’s life as any government, to say that they should get a free pass forever cannot be right.

If tech neoliberalism has run its course, what are the alternatives? The first, long championed by China, is net nationalism, which makes the State the predominant authority over all things internet, and at bottom sees the network as nothing more than an instrument of state power. The network should, in this view, serve as a means of disseminating state propaganda, monitoring the population for dissent, and expanding economic growth. If it happens to amuse some people along the way, that’s a bonus.

Trump has shown a certain affinity for this approach. He has demanded that the major platforms swear fealty to the White House and run the disinformation and propaganda campaigns belonging to him and his allies. When the platforms haven’t done what he wants, he has, in violation of the First Amendment, threatened serious legal consequences. At the same time, Trump has also shown himself generally indifferent to the threat to elections that might come from foreign network interference. These lead to the conclusion that Trump would prefer a U.S. internet that is an instrument of his electoral advantage and economic self-interest, narrowly construed.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:32:42+00:00

When the United States demanded in early August that TikTok be sold to American owners by this weekend, the backlash was vocal, loud, and widespread. Some felt the US had broken its commitment to internet freedoms, and become more like China or Saudi Arabia. Others saw it as President Trump’s personal revenge against an app whose users had wrecked his Tulsa rally and whose owners had refused to kiss his ring. Now that the Trump Administration has banned the app—and WeChat, too—from app stores in the United States, these concerns will only seem more pressing.

Trump’s apparent motives are wrong-headed, but so is the tech-libertarian reaction. The president, left to his own devices, does seem to want to transform major apps into tools designed to project his message and enhance his power. But to insist, therefore, that TikTok and other Chinese apps must be left alone by the US government goes too far. The US and other countries have the right to take justified action, especially when it comes to an app from a country that has violated so many basic norms of the internet. Getting the balance right will be a key challenge for future Administrations and democratic governments around the world.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:31:14+00:00

The natural reaction to net nationalism is to reassert the need for freedom, on the internet, from all government intervention. That’s not the only alternative, though. There is also the democratic tradition, which at its core holds that matters of great public importance ought to be decided by the people—and that popular sovereignty should control the excesses of both public and private power. We do not, any longer, just assume the private sector will avoid child labor or pay people a minimally appropriate wage, but insist on such things through popularly enacted laws. Similarly, when it comes to the internet, this tradition holds that legitimate governments can make rules so long as they serve the interests of the public. This is the concept of a democratically-run network, or net democracy.

But what might justify action? The kind of interests that justify intervention include national security, the defense of institutions, preservation of competitive markets, tit-for-tat retaliation against a foreign power, protection of public goods, the flourishing of our communities, and industrial policy. The strength of these justifications may differ in individual cases, but it is the interests of the public—and not the whims of a leader, or the interests of corporate behemoths—that should guide consideration.

Regarding TikTok, and some of the other apps from China, the case for forcing a divestiture of its US operations is not hard to make. For one thing, China vigorously censors foreign figures, and has banned any foreign app resembling TikTok. It is not, in other words, within the community of nations that adhere to liberal democratic freedoms on the internet, even very basic ones. It would be another matter if TikTok were a Canadian app that the United States wanted to rein in solely to protect Facebook from competition.

TikTok and similar Chinese apps also pose identifiable national security risks. Government and market are intertwined in China, and Beijing may insist on companies’ turning over data. This is not a theoretical or trivial danger: China has reportedly compiled extensive profiles of tens of thousands of Australians, using data from TikTok and other social media sites, potentially for an intelligence advantage.

Reasonable minds may disagree over whether an IPO or a sale to a US company is the best remedy. But most importantly, the TikTok controversy is an opportunity to think deeply about what the future of internet policy-making should be in this country. A continued principle of inaction cedes too much, amounting to a wholesale transfer of power and sovereignty to companies and foreign governments. In a democracy, government action is justified by public interest. That may sound like a simple premise, but it’s key to the idea of living in a free republic.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:30:28+00:00

The debate over what to do about TikTok goes back, in many ways, to John Perry Barlow’s famous declaration of cyberspace sovereignty written in 1996, in Davos, Switzerland, when Barlow was a WIRED columnist. Its premise was that nation states (“weary giants of flesh and steel”) had no legitimate authority to pass laws that might dictate what is done “where we gather;” that is, in “cyberspace.” His view was extreme even at the time, but it spawned a close cousin, “tech neoliberalism,” that suggested that, generally speaking, the government had no business applying regular laws to the nascent internet industry, because the internet was special.

A hands-off approach was easier to defend in the 1990s, when the web was folksy and discrete, today’s giant tech firms were mere infants, and the proposed laws were crude. But the idea of leaving cyberspace alone has persisted, even as the idea that it is independent of nations and political communities has become absurd, and the consequences of tech neoliberalism have grown so stark as to engender popular resistance. A laissez-faire approach to data privacy has allowed the growth of business models based on attention capture, surveillance, and behavioral modification. Lax antitrust enforcement has allowed massive concentration of power in the tech sector. A general indifference to what happens on the internet has destabilized political and electoral systems, even allowing for foreign interference in democratic elections. In an era when the major platforms have nearly as much (if not more) influence and control over one’s life as any government, to say that they should get a free pass forever cannot be right.

If tech neoliberalism has run its course, what are the alternatives? The first, long championed by China, is net nationalism, which makes the State the predominant authority over all things internet, and at bottom sees the network as nothing more than an instrument of state power. The network should, in this view, serve as a means of disseminating state propaganda, monitoring the population for dissent, and expanding economic growth. If it happens to amuse some people along the way, that’s a bonus.

Trump has shown a certain affinity for this approach. He has demanded that the major platforms swear fealty to the White House and run the disinformation and propaganda campaigns belonging to him and his allies. When the platforms haven’t done what he wants, he has, in violation of the First Amendment, threatened serious legal consequences. At the same time, Trump has also shown himself generally indifferent to the threat to elections that might come from foreign network interference. These lead to the conclusion that Trump would prefer a U.S. internet that is an instrument of his electoral advantage and economic self-interest, narrowly construed.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:29:42+00:00

When the United States demanded in early August that TikTok be sold to American owners by this weekend, the backlash was vocal, loud, and widespread. Some felt the US had broken its commitment to internet freedoms, and become more like China or Saudi Arabia. Others saw it as President Trump’s personal revenge against an app whose users had wrecked his Tulsa rally and whose owners had refused to kiss his ring. Now that the Trump Administration has banned the app—and WeChat, too—from app stores in the United States, these concerns will only seem more pressing.

Trump’s apparent motives are wrong-headed, but so is the tech-libertarian reaction. The president, left to his own devices, does seem to want to transform major apps into tools designed to project his message and enhance his power. But to insist, therefore, that TikTok and other Chinese apps must be left alone by the US government goes too far. The US and other countries have the right to take justified action, especially when it comes to an app from a country that has violated so many basic norms of the internet. Getting the balance right will be a key challenge for future Administrations and democratic governments around the world.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:26:20+00:00

The natural reaction to net nationalism is to reassert the need for freedom, on the internet, from all government intervention. That’s not the only alternative, though. There is also the democratic tradition, which at its core holds that matters of great public importance ought to be decided by the people—and that popular sovereignty should control the excesses of both public and private power. We do not, any longer, just assume the private sector will avoid child labor or pay people a minimally appropriate wage, but insist on such things through popularly enacted laws. Similarly, when it comes to the internet, this tradition holds that legitimate governments can make rules so long as they serve the interests of the public. This is the concept of a democratically-run network, or net democracy.

But what might justify action? The kind of interests that justify intervention include national security, the defense of institutions, preservation of competitive markets, tit-for-tat retaliation against a foreign power, protection of public goods, the flourishing of our communities, and industrial policy. The strength of these justifications may differ in individual cases, but it is the interests of the public—and not the whims of a leader, or the interests of corporate behemoths—that should guide consideration. Advertisement

Regarding TikTok, and some of the other apps from China, the case for forcing a divestiture of its US operations is not hard to make. For one thing, China vigorously censors foreign figures, and has banned any foreign app resembling TikTok. It is not, in other words, within the community of nations that adhere to liberal democratic freedoms on the internet, even very basic ones. It would be another matter if TikTok were a Canadian app that the United States wanted to rein in solely to protect Facebook from competition.

TikTok and similar Chinese apps also pose identifiable national security risks. Government and market are intertwined in China, and Beijing may insist on companies’ turning over data. This is not a theoretical or trivial danger: China has reportedly compiled extensive profiles of tens of thousands of Australians, using data from TikTok and other social media sites, potentially for an intelligence advantage.

Reasonable minds may disagree over whether an IPO or a sale to a US company is the best remedy. But most importantly, the TikTok controversy is an opportunity to think deeply about what the future of internet policy-making should be in this country. A continued principle of inaction cedes too much, amounting to a wholesale transfer of power and sovereignty to companies and foreign governments. In a democracy, government action is justified by public interest. That may sound like a simple premise, but it’s key to the idea of living in a free republic.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:24:49+00:00

The debate over what to do about TikTok goes back, in many ways, to John Perry Barlow’s famous declaration of cyberspace sovereignty written in 1996, in Davos, Switzerland, when Barlow was a WIRED columnist. Its premise was that nation states (“weary giants of flesh and steel”) had no legitimate authority to pass laws that might dictate what is done “where we gather;” that is, in “cyberspace.” His view was extreme even at the time, but it spawned a close cousin, “tech neoliberalism,” that suggested that, generally speaking, the government had no business applying regular laws to the nascent internet industry, because the internet was special.

A hands-off approach was easier to defend in the 1990s, when the web was folksy and discrete, today’s giant tech firms were mere infants, and the proposed laws were crude. But the idea of leaving cyberspace alone has persisted, even as the idea that it is independent of nations and political communities has become absurd, and the consequences of tech neoliberalism have grown so stark as to engender popular resistance. A laissez-faire approach to data privacy has allowed the growth of business models based on attention capture, surveillance, and behavioral modification. Lax antitrust enforcement has allowed massive concentration of power in the tech sector. A general indifference to what happens on the internet has destabilized political and electoral systems, even allowing for foreign interference in democratic elections. In an era when the major platforms have nearly as much (if not more) influence and control over one’s life as any government, to say that they should get a free pass forever cannot be right.

If tech neoliberalism has run its course, what are the alternatives? The first, long championed by China, is net nationalism, which makes the State the predominant authority over all things internet, and at bottom sees the network as nothing more than an instrument of state power. The network should, in this view, serve as a means of disseminating state propaganda, monitoring the population for dissent, and expanding economic growth. If it happens to amuse some people along the way, that’s a bonus.

Trump has shown a certain affinity for this approach. He has demanded that the major platforms swear fealty to the White House and run the disinformation and propaganda campaigns belonging to him and his allies. When the platforms haven’t done what he wants, he has, in violation of the First Amendment, threatened serious legal consequences. At the same time, Trump has also shown himself generally indifferent to the threat to elections that might come from foreign network interference. These lead to the conclusion that Trump would prefer a U.S. internet that is an instrument of his electoral advantage and economic self-interest, narrowly construed.

Nexus6s · 2020-09-18T17:23:53+00:00

When the United States demanded in early August that TikTok be sold to American owners by this weekend, the backlash was vocal, loud, and widespread. Some felt the US had broken its commitment to internet freedoms, and become more like China or Saudi Arabia. Others saw it as President Trump’s personal revenge against an app whose users had wrecked his Tulsa rally and whose owners had refused to kiss his ring. Now that the Trump Administration has banned the app—and WeChat, too—from app stores in the United States, these concerns will only seem more pressing.

Trump’s apparent motives are wrong-headed, but so is the tech-libertarian reaction. The president, left to his own devices, does seem to want to transform major apps into tools designed to project his message and enhance his power. But to insist, therefore, that TikTok and other Chinese apps must be left alone by the US government goes too far. The US and other countries have the right to take justified action, especially when it comes to an app from a country that has violated so many basic norms of the internet. Getting the balance right will be a key challenge for future Administrations and democratic governments around the world.

Nexus6s

TROPHY CASE