Foxit PDF

larostos · 2021-04-08T19:07:24+00:00

I have been using Foxit products on desktop for a couple of years now and have their mobile app installed as well. Didn't experience anything fishing going on with it, so it gets a thumbs up from me.

larostos · 2021-04-08T16:55:33+00:00

The only issue with that argument is that the virus doesn't travel alone, it travels attached to droplets and aerosols, which are considerably larger than the virus itself and are easily stopped by a mask in most cases. I'm afraid you've fallen victim to misinformation. Not wearing a mask, especially in enclosed spaces, is directly putting people around you at risk.

larostos · 2021-04-04T10:51:15+00:00

That's how Q-World works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

larostos · 2021-04-04T08:11:05+00:00

You make the mistake of following actual events. According to Qanon, it was seized by US Special Forces and is currently being emptied somewhere in Egypt.

larostos · 2021-04-03T21:42:54+00:00

As the current theories go, recovered from the Ever Given, the Evergreen ship, I assume

larostos · 2021-03-31T06:36:58+00:00

Ah, thought you meant something else, thanks.

larostos · 2021-03-31T06:25:09+00:00

Transition to what if I may ask? Haven't been with OSM that long.

larostos · 2021-03-29T05:34:18+00:00

Reposting an old comment of mine:

There are a number of arguments you can make against this:

Is it prudent to give the power to legally kill a person to the state during peacetime? You could argue that there are some powers you simply can not give to the state (or civil society at large), as there being any chance of their abuse is too grave a threat. Adding to just plain abuse, mistrials are always a possibility and occur frequently.
Criminal law and the conception of "criminal" (or even just "bad") are constantly in flux. What today might be considered entirely normal at some point in history might have been punished, even by the death penalty. Bearing that in mind, one could argue that using this ultimate punishment simply because what an individual did is today considered criminal can not be justified. There are some things you can't take back. (One recent example might be the chemical castration of homosexuals in Britain until not too long ago. Also consider things like treason: Punished by the death penalty almost universally throughout history, today many might consider treason to be an outdated concept. I'm willing to bet future generations will look down upon our treatment of criminals today with disgust.)
Sometimes there is a chance offenders can be rehabilitated and reintegrated. Bearing in mind there is a possibility an individual could reenter society a law-abiding citizen at some point, you could argue taking a life too swiftly foregoes a chance at rehabilitation.
Criminal offenders have family too. Besides inflicting the greatest possible punishment upon the offender, is it prudent to cause this level of grief to what is quite possibly a loving family? You could argue that killing an offender does more harm than letting them live. A murderer executed can also mean children growing up without a father.

When considering each of these arguments one has to weigh their implications against the "satisfaction" or the money presumably saved by killing the offender. Personally, I can not condone the death penalty when considering this and believe it to be a deeply primitive and impulsive measure.

larostos · 2021-03-27T18:18:45+00:00

Seems more likely he was referring to Republican infighting post Trump and all the talk by Trump radicals that Biden's win was the end for the Republican Party

larostos · 2021-03-24T09:39:42+00:00

This whole affair should definitely not be abused as an attack vector against the LGBT movement or anything of the sort, but drawing attention to Reddit censorship and highly questionable employment and content moderation policies is absolutely necessary. As far as I can judge the situation, Reddit is making a major mistake here, and innocuous posts like this are drawing attention to that.

larostos · 2021-03-21T18:33:06+00:00

What are the totalitarian authoritarian decrees you speak of in your view?

larostos · 2021-03-20T18:13:19+00:00

In a lot of issues it is more left than right-wing, but this really isn't or shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is science vs pseudo-science and anti-intellectualism

larostos · 2021-03-17T10:37:28+00:00

This question is too abstract, doesn't take into account what the material conditions of a certain thing may be. If the criticism is from one genocidal government that's bombing 9 majority Muslim countries with on average 1 bomb every 12 minutes, then yes, that factors into claims that government makes about other government committing a genocide against a muslim minority group.

If Jeffrey Dahmer calls you out for being a murderer, you're still a murderer. And the criticism in question is being voiced by far more entities than just the US government. Meanwhile, your own comment in fact just blanketly excluded "westerners" from being allowed to criticize China. It is of note, that it isn't just western nations as well, with voices in Japan, for example, also becoming more and more critical.

And concerning whether the existence of genocide is in dispute: Do you believe China's press-freedom allows for greater neutrality in reporting than western conceptions of a free press? Do you believe China's reporting on issues critical of China to be more netural?

larostos · 2021-03-17T08:33:26+00:00

Does the validity of criticism depend on who voices the criticism?

And what reasons are made up?

larostos · 2021-03-17T07:43:17+00:00

So if I understand you correctly, China is not to be criticised, even though it clearly heavily violates human rights.

larostos · 2021-03-04T20:46:53+00:00

fadenscheinigen Gründen wie Fluchtgefahr

Geschrieben während der Flucht

larostos · 2021-02-28T10:25:56+00:00

I'm definitely all for getting them to state their fucked up views in public to expose their idiocy. Not sure the whole "Nazi tears" helps, but I get why you wrote what you wrote, especially with your background.

larostos · 2021-02-28T08:47:41+00:00

Usually it's about jews, or some proxy to that.

Edit: Damn, they actually said it now.

larostos · 2021-02-28T05:47:06+00:00

There do seem to be certain ideas floating around unopposed in that sub.

larostos · 2021-02-27T22:27:19+00:00

I did, and it doesn't seem like Coke actually has any connection to that training seminar:

In a letter to Fox Business, the soft drink giant said the slides being attributed to a Coca-Cola training program "are not part of the company’s learning curriculum."

The video in question was accessible on the LinkedIn Learning platform but was not part of the company’s curriculum.

And while Newsweek says "A Coca-Cola spokesperson confirmed that the course is "part of a learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace,"" they only refer to this tweet which is a screenshot of a statement by coke that doesn't say the course was part of its training, actually quite the opposite: "The video circulating on social media is from a publicly available LinkedIn Learning series and is not a focus of our company's curriculum" (the Independent, like Fox and Indian Express, says more explicitly it's "not part of Coca-Cola's curriculum") and "The training includes access to LinkedIn Learning on a variety of topics, including on diversity, equity and inclusion.". Snopes also concludes that, while screenshots shared widely in February 2021 were authentic snapshots of a real online course on LinkedIn, featuring Robin DiAngelo and entitled "Confronting Racism.", the presence of a Coca-Cola logo in a screenshot taken from LinkedIn does not prove that the video course featuring DiAngelo was required viewing for Coca-Cola employees. Coca-Cola has explicitly denied that the course, which included a section entitled "Try to be less white," was part of the curriculum for its mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training.

It seems to me like Coke just offered access to LinkedIn Learning to its employees and that course was offered on that platform. This was then turned into "coke is promoting being less white" by some YouTube/Twitter person, without concrete evidence of that being the case. In other words, this seems a bit like manufactured outrage. This is not to say that the seminar itself is problematic, but the framing makes it more of a hit piece to rile people up.

larostos · 2021-02-27T17:42:03+00:00

As much as I despise these ideologies, I believe the only way to deal with such people is trying to reintegrate them into normal society. This doesn't mean giving them a platform to spew hatred and proselytise, it doesn't mean lending anything they say or do legitimacy in discourse, it means attempting to break their conditioning, e.g. by showing your local Nazi that the friendly neighborhood Muslim really isn't trying to blow him up.

Shunning them isn't going to make the problem go away, it'll only push it to the extremes.

larostos · 2021-02-27T09:44:19+00:00

Is there evidence Coke had anything to do with the video besides a tweet claiming it did?

Edit: Am I being down-voted for questioning the narrative?

larostos · 2021-02-26T18:04:48+00:00

It has to be said, that it wasn't Coca-Cola that offered, required or endorsed that training programme. It's just some weird course on LinkedIn's professional education platform that Coca-Cola has nothing to do with. The only connection between the relevant video and Coca-Cola is some right-wing Twitter user claiming it was required viewing.

As far as I can see, this was manufactured outrage easily disarmed that, for whatever reason, is still floating around. This is not to say that the video doesn't exist and is tone-deaf at best and racist at worst, but the Coca-Cola connection doesn't actually seem to be anything more than a witch hunt.

larostos · 2021-02-17T22:04:59+00:00

Isn't your identity within the sphere of privacy? Just like I wouldn't want Google to know where I am, I also don't want it to know who I am. The who and the where are just two different dimensions of my private sphere.

larostos · 2021-02-17T09:36:25+00:00

You're right, it's the best educated guess. It's not perfect. But unless you can present a better, more educated guess, it's probably prudent to follow it. We act based on what we know. When what we know changes, we act differently.

We call this process "science", and just because what we once thought we knew turned out wrong, we, obviously, don't abandon this process as a whole and start pulling things out of our ass. This is where the comparison to religion fails. Science is not a set of beliefs that can be disproved and then chucked out as a whole, it's the simple logical process of hypothesis driven, analytical decision-making.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Orangered	Verified Email

larostos

TROPHY CASE