If Lemmy has a best of, this should be submitted. Or maybe we just need to create a new one called hardest life lesson.

This is the realpolitik answer. Intake perception of power, intentions, hard power, and leverage, among other things to get the context for position changes.

Russia sees creating the “macroregion” as an important long-term project, which would outlast any talks with the west over the future of Ukraine, to help strengthen its footing on the “global arena,” the report says.

The new bloc would connect Russia to the global south by giving each side access to raw materials, developing financial and transport ties, and uniting them through a common “world view [ . . .] where we write rule for the new world [and have] our own sanctions policy”, the report claims.

But it admits the obstacles to Russia’s global resurgence remain considerable. The report says western countries have successfully threatened central Asian countries into complying with sanctions through a “carrot-and-stick” approach while offering them access to global markets, transport corridors, and supply chains that bypass Moscow.

Russia’s allies, meanwhile, have profited from the sanctions by driving Russian businesses out of their home jurisdiction, taking control of import and export flows, and relocating production from Russia, according to the report. It adds that central Asian countries have also sought extra commissions to compensate for the risks of violating sanctions.

While I have little doubt they are spending many millions on it, I sort of doubt it’s billions of euros. They link a telegram source, which talks about German Intelligence. Not impossible, but not an easily verifiable source.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

It just seems rather unlikely they are spending that much on disinformation when the have a real and present war in front of them with huge hardware/personnel loss, and have a waning treasury.

Been a while, but in several US states where the free report was mandated, they also allowed a request to be mailed in, of even faxed. Old school, but I would be surprised if they don’t still have some of those methods, and probably don’t require web form consents to privacy invading terms.

Indeed! Find yourself. Only then can you really connect with others authentically.

Disagree. It’s a tool that in it’s current form changes our way of processing and way of perceiving. It literally changes the way your brain seeks pleasure as well as intakes facts. One that individuals have to have a the money, knowledge, and social/legal/cultural power to take control of otherwise it will modify your decision making in such a way that you don’t feel, see, or believe there is a change. It’s so ubiquitous, pervasive, and disruptive, that contact and at least minimal acceptance is required to function in the global society.

The isolation, cognitive disrupted, physiological change that the internet has wrought through the smartphone, social media, and the apps is huge and yet not well discussed in anything but academic studies and other rarified forums.

Fair point, well played.

Just because history is idealized doesn’t mean it was actually better. Hans Rosling said it really well describing his standard of living improvement.

With that said, the world has not adapted to technology in it’s current incarnation yet, along side the other challenges it’s a tough world for all but the very wealthy and even they are showing signs of increased anxiety, stress, and depression.

Being ruled by our evolved cognitive biases through our technology, requires external regulation before the vast majority of the humanity can cope with the change.

To quote from a paper on the topic of OS security:

https://iststudentlab.uap.asia/student-exhibits/periodicals-on-advancements-in-operating-systems-and-networking

According to the paper [5], windows is the most user friendly and has more hardware compatibility. In terms of security, Linux is the most secure among all OS given that it is an open- source operating system which gives users the ability to customize and implement security patches. As for memory management, macOS is the better option due to its fully integrated virtual memory system which is often on and continuously provides addressable space up to 4 per process. The virtual memory system allocates extra space for swap files on the root file system as a program uses space.

All available OS offer some level of security features such as firewalls, antivirus software, and encryption [6]. macOS has a level of security due to its unique operating system designed specifically for Apple devices with no third-party developers involved. Linux, being open source, is often regarded as more secure than Windows, which is a target of many malware attacks [7].

I would entirely agree with this, having watch BBC, NatGeo, History Channel, and more media people who love GDrives, only use Macs, filmed deliverables on iPhone, want Mac Pros for editing etc.

Have you used windows lately? I swear it’s become half-assed as an OS. Might still have the enterprise management features, but it’s incredibly painful in a mixed enterprise environment that is not standardized office boxes. (e.g. science equipment). I avoid it like the plague if at all possible due to it’s now quirky nature.

I’m dating myself, but at least NT didn’t crash all the damn time when you access a share on a NetApp or install a new version of the evil Java… Etc.

I’m over this technological improvement of our lives, and it’s manipulate existence. My hope is that we and I can put our fucking phones down and actually connect with each other again. We aren’t getting out of this economic takeover unless we actually talk to each other like the adults we are supposed to be. Be passionate, but listen. Act with compassion, but defy the fascist ideals. Realize that we are biased and make mistakes, but can learn from those mistakes… Even when as you get older.

You mean like

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362607055_Impact_of_social_media_use_on_critical_thinking_ability_of_university_students

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216307841

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-010-0398-z

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131516302469

Look to history for some answers.

The Denver Post had a opinion piece that talked about how America has seen something like this before.

The Gilded Age, the tumultuous period between roughly 1870 and 1900, was also a time of rapid technological change, of mass immigration, of spectacular wealth and enormous inequality. The era got its name from a Mark Twain novel: gilded, rather than golden, to signify a thin, shiny surface layer. Below it lay the corruption and greed that engulfed the country after the Civil War.

The era survives in the public imagination through still resonant names, including J.P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt; through their mansions, which now greet awestruck tourists; and through TV shows with extravagant interiors and lavish gowns. Less well remembered is the brutality that underlay that wealth — the tens of thousands of workers, by some calculations, who lost their lives to industrial accidents, or the bloody repercussions they met when they tried to organize for better working conditions.

Also less well remembered is the intensity of political violence that erupted. The vast inequities of the era fueled political movements that targeted corporate titans, politicians, judges and others for violence. In 1892, an anarchist tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick after a drawn-out conflict between Pinkerton security guards and workers. In 1901, an anarchist sympathizer assassinated President William McKinley. And so on.

As historian Jon Grinspan wrote about the years between 1865 and 1915, “the nation experienced one impeachment, two presidential elections ‘won’ by the loser of the popular vote and three presidential assassinations.” And neither political party, he added, seemed “capable of tackling the systemic issues disrupting Americans’ lives.” No, not an identical situation, but the description does resonate with how a great many people feel about the direction of the country today.

It’s not hard to see how, during the Gilded Age, armed political resistance could find many eager recruits and even more numerous sympathetic observers. And it’s not hard to imagine how the United States could enter another such cycle.

Not yet… Just waiting

Good fill-in on that. i think I’d add some context to each which is worth discussing.

• Political instability and weak governance are present.

  • No, there are some arguably elements, but when you compare to the issues you see in the countries who’ve had them “No” is good a simple distilled answer.

• There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.

  • Yes, with the caveat that we are seeing low level tensions as compared to the direct violent and organic engage issues you might see in Syria, Haiti, Yugoslavia, etc. There is racism with violence and tension, but not at the widespread near genocidal level which are the signs which is considered. I admit this is arguably, but worth discussing as it’s a framing issue about gun violence, police use of force, structural violence, etc.

• The economy is declining with high inequality.

  • Economy: not declining - Inequality: high, this in particular is going to be a hard sign to trip, given how widespread the middle class is in the US vs other examples. It’s just a much much larger base that needs to get squeezed so much more before you’ll likely see French like protests about the wage disparity, corruption, or other inequality challenges. It’s very relevant, but just unlikely to get a significant population to say it’s not fair enough to act on it… When they can still go out to eat, watch movies, have disposable income, and more.

• Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.

  • Might happen if Trump loses or steals the presidency, this I’m just going to avoid given the continuing discussion.

• External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.

  • Yes, big time, substantiated from a foreign power stand point. I’d point out that this should also describe multinational companies as much as foreign powers.

• There is significant resource scarcity and competition.

  • Not yet, but global warming might make this happen, agree. Starting to see some changes due to some globalization, pandemic, and your point of climate change.

• Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.

  • Well, it’s the USA, agreed… But we are not seeing this based on strictly ethic lines in a way.

• Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.

  • Might happen under Trump

• Society experiences strong ideological polarization.

  • Yes, I’d caveat this with the reality that although it’s perceived as half the country that is polling well for Trump, it’s closer to a third or less. Not that the ideology divide isn’t pertinent, but just that there are about 80 million people who don’t vote in the US, so voter participation in presidential election is about 60%. So perception is that we have huge divide, but it’s driven by less and more extreme voices then the masses.

• Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.

  • No, I would actually argue this might be yes. The housing crunch is driven by a rural to urban migration, which has exacerbated the housing shortage. This in addition to the US being an outlier that has kept it’s population growth rate higher than other developed countries has continued to increase the US population, which is only recently beginning to slow. This is not at the same level as other collapsed countries, but is what gives people the perception that the US is struggling.

• The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.

  • No, agreed although the judge choices and decisions of late leave much to be desired.

• Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

  • No, agreed with the caveat that racial tension are at play and perceptions focus this to include immigrants.

So I talked to a PhD who’s work covered civil wars across the world, and asked about this. Turns out there are several signs you need to see which makes a civil war more likely. Most of which we haven’t even gotten close to, because many of them are economic related and right now the US is still the single largest economy in the world where peoples standard of living is still very comfortable.

I asked ChatGPT to describe this and these are the highlights, in order of historical priority?

• Political instability and weak governance are present.
• There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.
• The economy is declining with high inequality.
• Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.
• External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.
• There is significant resource scarcity and competition.
• Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.
• Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.
• Society experiences strong ideological polarization.
• Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.
• The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.
• Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

Note that the US does have some of these, but not to the evident level that you saw in Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Syria, Burundi, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, Myanmar, Haiti, and others. In short, if you look at the indicators, although the US is indeed troubled, it’s not troubled enough for people to hot the streets with more than riotous intent.