Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones.
I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Trump was elected, it seems true-ish.[1]
but does EU really? EU has, even without the UK, the second biggest military in the world. Are we seriously saying that this is not enough to defend EU? if not, why not?
also, the numbers for ukraine support are not comparable like that, much of the money the EU gives ukraine are not "given", because the EU cannot just do that, they give them loans that they then later give up on (because EU is corrupt and likes to not follow own laws).
In addition to that, it is ridiculous to say that even ANY support to ukraine is needed to defend EU. Consider this, if EU really wanted to give it all, how much more could EU muster than what is currently given to ukraine? how could russia possibly hope to defeat EU?
If you taxed the rich and corporations like Europe does you could easily have social security. The rich in the US love making Europe the boogeyman that stole your social security, while they laugh all the way to the bank.
bullshit, email exists outside of gmail, and email would continue to exist without it. many would have to get a new account somewhere, but that would be not a problem. there are shitloads of providers that would be quite happy
and anyone that considers this to be the case for sqlite, should probably have their reasoning skills examined.
if the unfortunate bus incident happens to sqlite developers, there is exactly ZERO chance that it will not be very well maintained on the count of all the users, many of whom already have support contracts going for decades, and which would require the same level of support they have already enjoyed.
someone tries to scam, steal, beat you up. they then make efforts to stop doing that, and their trust would rise skyhigh? what does someone have to do to earn that kind of loyalty? would you apply this to anything else?
If they've given all the money back that they've scammed and otherwise made all the people they've hurt whole again, and are then continuing to provide a service people find use in, then yes. I'd probably need some time to be convinced that that's what's happened, and that they've truly changed. MS obviously isn't there, but there are theoretical worlds where this can happen.
Obviously, Microsoft can't give people back their deleted Onedrive files, but they can make good on a promise that it will never happen again (given that their efforts are founded in reality and not marketing speak), and hide behind a shield of 'that wasn't our intention'. Same goes with most other things you could complain about Windows.
If you have no reason to believe that Windows will screw you over, since MS has course-corrected on all major points of contention, then why not stick around? (The answer is that MS may change course again, but for those who haven't jumped ship, I'm sure this will provide good enough reason to stick around. It's not like the ship isn't providing them any utility. They've stuck around this long for a reason.)
"i hate how the current system is, i see some other guys have something that doesnt have these issues, what the other system needs to do is make their system exactly like my current, so that I dont need to spend ANY effort myself"
easy choice. also, thats just BS, remember how SOMEHOW the same was said for playback of music on computers, yet somehow a certain now-dead CEO was able to say "fuck you" and it happened anyway?
That was part of the deal with Apple the record company because otherwise Apple the computer company would infringe on their trademark. The Steves could have renamed their company or taken the deal. They took the deal.
reply