So you are straight up denying the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
To be clear I don’t fault them for signing a NAP, I fault them for invading a bunch of eastern European countries with whom they had no quarrel because they wanted to do imperialism.
But I guess the fact that you dodged the question and immediately started spewing whataboutism proves that you’re not really interested in a discussion.
It’s an ironic title. Like saying “A benefit of loosing your legs is that you don’t need to buy shoes anymore. I mean I can’t get down the stairs to leave my apartment, but at least I never have to shop for shoes again!”.
The benefit is real, but it’s also clearly not in proportion to the drawbacks presented, so focusing on the benefit is a joke.
So you’re saying we should invade Poland?
You missed the part in between where they made a deal with the nazis and invaded eastern Europe
I honestly kind of like the title and the angle of being brutally honest about the fact that the author (like most who are well off) actually benefit a lot from world hunger. That’s an important point, not because we should support world hunger, but because if we are to tackle it we must be willing to lower our standard of living.
To quote the article in question (highlight is my own):
“[H]ow many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.”
Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it’s just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don’t actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.
It does explain those things! I quote:
“While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created.”
The title is clearly thinly veiled satire and a pointed reminder that our current wealth is founded on the suffering of the poor.
Just read the article, it’s one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
But I’m sure George Kent, author of “Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food” is actually a shill for wealthy scum.
Well completion-ignore-case is enough to solve this particular problem, the other options are just sugar on top :)
I’m going to add completion-prefix-display-length to these related bonus tips (I have it set to 9). This makes it a lot easier to compare files with long names in your tab completion.
For example if you have a folder with these files:
FoobarSystem-v20.69.11-CrashLog2022-12-22 FoobarSystem-v20.69.11.config FoobarSystem-v20.69.12 FoobarSystem-v20.69.12-CrashLog2023-10-02 FoobarSystem-v20.69.12.config FoobarSystem-v20.69.12.userprofiles
Just type vim TAB to see
...1-CrashLog2022-12-22 ...1.config ...2 ...2-CrashLog2023-10-02 ...2.config ...2.userprofiles
$vim FoobarSystem-v20.69.1
GNU Readline (which is what Bash uses for input) has a lot of options (e.g. making it behave like vim), and your settings are also used in any other programs that use it for their CLI which is a nice bonus. The config file is ~/.inputrc and you’d enable the above mentioned options like this
$include /etc/inputrc
set completion-ignore-case on
set show-all-if-ambiguous on
set completion-map-case on
set completion-prefix-display-length 9
I and l also look identical in many fonts. So you already have this problem in ascii. (To say nothing of all the non-printing characters!)
If your security relies on a person being able to tell the difference between two characters controlled by an attacker your security is bad.
I believe that type of stuff is specified in your locale, so it’s possible that it would do the right thing if you’ve set your language to Turkish. Please try it and let us know though :)
I’d say the “exchanges” they had with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland etc. were quite unequal. Expanding your territory through force is the purest form of imperialism, no matter what color your flag is.
That declaration wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, as the USSR immediately turned around and tried to forcefully annex these newly independent states (and when it failed tried again some years later).
Yes Finland joined forces with the nazis after the winter war, but the USSR started the winter war attempting to conquer Finland. To blame them for joining forces with the enemy of their enemy after being invaded and losing territory is just wild.
So the argument is that the USSR was so scared of Poland joining the nazis that they made a deal with the nazis to invade it together and divide it between them? How does that make any sense?
The USSR didn’t withdraw their troops from the baltic states until the 90s, a good 45 years after the end of WWII.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a deal between the USSR and nazi Germany detailing who would get what parts of eastern Europe. The existence of other deals and treaties that you think are worse does not change that reality.
If the USSR had been the staunch defender of the slavic peoples from nazis aggression that you claim they were, they would have entered into a defensive pact with the eastern states, not invaded them.
Talk of freedom and brotherhood means nothing when cooperation is gained at the barrel of a gun.