Describing Germany's loss in WW2 as 'affecting their foreign policy a little' represents a profound disconnect with reality, which is that WW2 fundamentally reshaped the entire world, cemented the US as a superpower, set up the USSR for its rise, split Germany in two (with major political effects to this day), ended European empires (UK, French), and ultimately brought about the EU. And those are just some of WW2's effects, which would have all gone completely different directions if Germany or Japan had won.
This is an elite narrative. What happened to normal people? In the real world? Germans still speak German. Germany is still very wealthy, many of the same companies are still around; including those which supported the Nazi war effort like Hugo Boss and Mercedes Benz. German chemical industry is extremely successful... Population of Germany exceeds that of France...
How did Germany's defeat actually negatively affect things for the people in the long run?
One of my ancestors (French side) had to close their business because they made the decision to keep paying for employee wages during the war while their business was forcibly put on hold by the French government... Winning the war didn't mean much to them... Mercedes people who made the German war machines were filling their pockets throughout the entire war. Didn't even negatively affect their reputation!
What happened to normal people is very different.
The people who won are those who looked out only for their own interests! It doesn't matter what side they were on.
> This is an elite narrative. What happened to normal people? In the real world?
What a rubbish point you're pushing. Millions and millions died or were exterminated. Countless fled or were forcefully displaced. The country was occupied and then split apart, the effects of the DDR can be felt to this day. The collective shame will outlast any generation alive today.
Many institutions survived, yes, as they often do. But everything else was a nightmare that echoes to this day.
Software was already far down the bloat path by the time the Core 2 Duo came out, so the upgrade didn't make all that much of a difference in feel given how much latency was caused by software performing random reads off a disk. That's why SSDs made such a huge difference.
Back in the MS-DOS days, the amount of data needed to be read off a disk while the OS booted was negligible, so a second or two on a fast 486 felt amazing compared to the incredibly slow grind of watching code execute on an 8086 or slow 80286. Software was still in the space of having to run tolerably on an 8086, so the added resources of a newer faster machine actually did improve the feel of the system.
Can confirm - I go for the cheapest and smallest iPhones possible (e.g. 13 mini) and could not care less about >60Hz on my phone, although I care about it quite a lot for laptop or desktop displays. 17e will likely be my next upgrade (if I can bear to part with my 13 mini).
OK, religious ideas are kind of genetic via indoctrination. (Epigenetic? Heh.)
Meanwhile ideas can be "self-removing" due to being bad, but then you'd just say "that's a bad idea" not "that's self-removing", so genetic descent was implied.
I didn't say the Shakers had a bad idea, it just was an idea that led to them removing themselves from further existence that was not genetic. Whether that was a good or bad decision is an entirely separate judgement call.
How is that not a line of principle? Principle doesn't mean where we'd all agree, nor does it mean what we'd deem acceptable, it just means there is a line somewhere - and mass surveillance or fully autonomous AI in the kill chain is a very clear principle.
But to gp's point, that is a principle. Perhaps not yours, but they outlined their stance and stuck to it despite threats and consequences.
Contrast Sam's OpenAI announcement which was very carefully worded to appear to uphold the same principles, but is currently being rightfully disassembled as retaining various potential outs that would allow violating the signaled principles.
Honest and staunch about clearly stated principles is better than wiggly and dishonest about weasel-worded impressions of a principle.
And all of that is orthogonal to whether you (or anyone) agrees with a given principle or given revealed behavior.
You can spin up any idea and claim it increases brand loyalty, but you have to have actual evidence that that either happens or actually matters in some way, and in this case it probably doesn't and isn't worth the expense once the scale exceeds >1 employee spending more than a few minutes a day. If you've got the data to prove otherwise so that you can actually make someone money, go ahead and sell people on the idea.
I don't have to - it's called image branding and is a well-known and established marketing discipline. Not direct ROI like hard sell techniques, but it lands you with higher margins, lower customer acqusition costs, longer customer lifetime value, etc. Apple was a master at that, Nike, and in this particular example LEGO regularly responds to children mail, Nintendo built a whole business channel around it with Nintendo Power and I'm sure I could pull out many more examples. Not everything is a hard sell technique.
So according to you, we should all quit our jobs and go work for Lego, Nike, Apple and Nintendo because they have good PR with kids, while you ignore the fact that most of them use sweatshop labor in China, fuck the environment and sue honest people for bullshit IP reasons?
If the problem of society could be summed up in one bite, this would be it.
Obviously the concept is different from the execution, and you provided an idea on execution (which anyone can do) which would need to be actually, you know, proved out to help with any kind of brand loyalty. Just doing random things that sound good is not a great strategy.
CORS has nothing to do with (dis)allowing 'mutating requests from random origins' on the server unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. The origin is a browser concept.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. CORS is only a browser concept. If you fire off requests from something that isn't a browser (e.g. curl or a python script or whatever) CORS won't do anything. Servers need to validate the origin of requests properly if that's a problem.
The feature that was called is usually bundled in with cors, even if it strictly speaking isn't.
Allowed origins (what was meant) just validates the Origin header to make sure the API is called from a specific domain, and declines the request if not in the list.
The only way around that is not to send the unsubscribe request via the browser or proxy through a server, because the browser will always append the origin header according to the domain the user is on. Which if configured correctly and not proxied, would end in a http forbidden.
Whereas CORS would not even send the request I believe (but haven't verified), because thats essentially a browser feature, not server.
There's no actual good evidence for being a Mossad operative and the agenda of trying desperately to link him to Mossad so strongly is such a transparent agenda it's almost funny.
