You know how old scales worked by putting weights you know on one side, until things got balanced with the weight of the item you want to measure?

You do the same, but with acid and base, where you know the “weight” of one side of it.

You ought to get the balance right for things to change the way you like.

Titration is a great example of using the inverse. You get the colour by creating the balance. Then you can calculate the unknown side from the balance with the known side.

Now you can use the knowledge that your your base/acid is of a certain concentration to get the reaction you want to do right.

As for the specifics, once you get to organic chemistry in Uni it doesnt connect to make sense either, unless you really dive into the deep end of it.

This is not about kill bots. This is about defining you as a terrorist threat to the US empire because you are friends with someone who criticised them on the internet. And they will wait to bomb you until you are home, so your family is also murdered along side you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

I wonder how they communicated GUI colors then.

draw.set_color(r=0,g=0,b=0) # Adjust text color to very very dark grey

You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?

So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized”

By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to “mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized” them all too.

There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.

By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.

This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.

Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.

Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?

Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?

I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.

You know that the Nazis in Germany burned a lot of books?

Your general statement would absolve them from their actions and intentions and instead shifts the blame onto the people who got persecuted by having their books burnt. Which later escalated to more than “just” burning books.

You cannot reduce it to the action itself and ignore all the context around it, especially not the intentions of the perpetrators.

And “other people shouldn’t get offended if i insult and attack them constantly” is hardly acceptable in any other social context. E.g. i hope you would oppose insulting LGBTQ, Women, Ethnic minorities, disabled people…

And it should be obvious from these examples, that “it is just a joke” or “it is just an insult and i should be allowed to insult, because muuh free speech” is not a sincere argument, by the people spreading the hate. And their intention is never to keep the hate at verbal abuse, but to escalate it to physical violence.

I agree on the “reasonable response” aspect.

I think for the first question it should revolve around “public” or “private”. if you do something at home and record it to share the video on the internet, it is still public, with the goal to be public.

So in regards to incitement or hate speech it is also different if your racist uncle spurts his ideas at the family reunion, or if he broadcasts them on twitter.

Publicly burning symbols of a minority group or a world view is an incitement to violence against that group or people holding that world view.

It has nothing to do with constructive criticism. It is symbolizing a violent act, with the goal to incite more violence.

Germany is on the best way to repeat 1933, putting fascism into power with the help of the “conservatives” and a bystanding/complicit center

Still have voter apathy, rising fascism and a bunch of supposedly progressive parties that have moved strongly to the right, with truly left/progressive parties being almost irrelevant.

I think your description covers many career choices in a capitalist society.

AfD are openly very strong supporters of Israel and pushed for resolutions against BDS in 2019 and now supported an “anti antisemitism” resolution in the German parliament, which is designed in a way that shifts the blame for antisemitism away from German Nazis and onto Muslims and Leftists critical of Israel.

The BDS resolution was already used to silence critics of Israel, disproportionately affecting Jews critical of Israel. Now the new resolution suggests having the interior intelligence screen scientists and artists to make sure they are “without a doubt” not antisemitic, aka they most not have voiced any criticism of Israel. The most cynical aspect of it is that it does mention last years Berlinale as an example for antisemitisim because a Jewish documentary director called Israel an Apartheid state. Meanwhile the resolution does not refer to a terror attack by a Neonazi, who tried murdering Jews in a synagogue in Halle a few years back.

Unfortunately the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals and Conservatives were all in on it.

The AfD is only displaying the most extreme form of a sentiment prevalent in German politics. Downplay German fascism and antisemitism by the right and center and blame it all on people crirical of Israel.

There is a great podcast about the insanity of Germanys way of dealing with it, interviewing Emily Dische-Becker, who is one of the writers of the Jerusalem definition of antisemitism. The Jerusalem definition is an alternative definition to the IHRA definition with the goal to properly seperate between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.

https://thedigradio.com/podcast/the-german-question-w-emily-dische-becker/

I don’t see a problem. Index funds are precisely there to follow over and underevaluations, so that in the end the best mix gets out, tracking long term real value.

This also means, that the ones who got to sell at the high price get to reinvest that money somewhere else, which in a broad index fund, leads to increases in another place.

However this shows again that it is fatal to think of the market price as being an indicator for a companies worth. The market price only reflects the value of the currently sold stocks. If a large amount of stocks would be pushed onto the market or pulled from it, the price naturally goes up and down. But it is impossible to buy or sell an entire company at the current market price.

The sooner we stop basing economic decisions on the idea that the market price reflects the market cap and that would reflect the actual worth of a company, the less likely we would run into stupid decisions based on bubbles.

Bashar already went on to a neoliberal course and privatized many businesses and removed many social securities that his father Hafiz granted.

The social contract in Syria under Hafiz was working on the basis of “If you keep your mouth shut, the government will ensure your everyday needs.” Under Bashar it was “We will fuck you economically and you keep your mouth shut, because we torture and kill you otherwise.” So there was only negatives, and a lack of things for people to lose, which is the basis of revolutions.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#1990s–2000s:_Liberalization_and_privatization

In the right circumstances it is a powerful tool. The question is, whether these circumstances apply in the current US

Is what i said.

So to reduce costs of goods we will make cheap items from China cost more so USA made can compete at a higher price. why doesn’t the math work here? how does this result in a better economy?

Because then manufacturers in the US employ people in the US, who then have more money to consume in the US. That requires the government to also work towards good wages though. Also it allows for industries to grow so they can use economics of scale to drive down their production prices and then their consumer prices.

Again, for developing industries it can be crucial and is tried and tested. The question is whether that is what the US needs right now.

that are not the sole responsibility of the company PRODUCING the emissions.

The carbon tax is obligatory by the company. The company puts it on top of the price. The consumer price increases by the value of the carbon tax.

It is the same thing. It does not matter whether a tax is “paid by the consumer” or “paid by the producer” it always ends up being part of the price of the product that the consumer pays.

Which in turn stimulates local production, which in turn leads to economic growth…

Seriously people, Protectionism is a tried and tested method. In the right circumstances it is a powerful tool. The question is, whether these circumstances apply in the current US, but look at all industrialized nations. They used protectionism to grow their industries and now they oppose other countries protectionism to keep them small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

Tariffs affect both sides, but the side with the protectionism can build up a local industry thanks to the tariffs. (Assuming access to the relevant resources)

That is why all industrialized nations used high tariffs to protect their emerging industries and once they were established demanded low tariffs from other countries to keep their industries small and the markets dependent.

While in the short run this means a price increase for the consumer, in the long run the local employment and production increase the wealth to offset the initial price increase. That is why “free trade agreements” by industrialized nations often hav devastating effects on the developing nations they push them on. Western “free trade” has ravaged farmers and small business producers in Africa, Asia, South America…

Finally the government can spend the money it raised through the tariffs to stimulate further growth with spending, or by lowering taxes in other fields.

Trump understands very well what he does there, and it is not like the economic theory behind it is complicated. The question is, whether this strategy makes sense for the US when there is retaliatory measures taken by the affected countries seeking to export to the US.

It is the same principle like carbon taxes btw. if you oppose tariffs solely based on the notion that they are “paid by the importer and not the exporter”, you would need to reject carbon taxes, as they are “paid by the consumer, not the company.”

I think it is a bit more complicated.

If we accept that adultery is a reason for “fault divorce”, this makes it easy for an undiscovered adulterer to turn it into a no fault divorce, take a full half and then “have found” new love right as the divorce is fully settled.