God bless you

That other reason, too often it’s Western intervention.

As a consequence, I believe that there won’t be a peaceful transition into a multipolar world, because that could have already happened.

That advantage could have been given up and shared. Instead it is defended, even with military power. Why fight those wars now and make enemies?

Thank you, but it doesn’t work for me:

!https://lemmy.world/post/26673110

Does GB need a cookie? Why do they toot their own horn?

Edit: Does it not feel out of character to you? There is no ceasefire agreement, just an agreement to participate in negotiations. I would assume that to a British prime minister, that’s not worth mentioning and when the BBC writes it like this, that it is a subtle putdown.

See also: instances with individual all feeds https://reddthat.com/post/36815847

There should be another feed, besides subscribed, local and all, that shows the channels that are relevant to the instance.

This idea relates to custom collections: https://lemmy.world/post/26654286

How can I link a post without redirecting?

There is an entire instance for the Midwest. Have a look to check if they already have an active community

https://midwest.social/

The surveillance of chats and the prohibition of encryption in many Western countries must have a purpose. It mostly makes sense if democracy is dismantled.

Since the West doesn’t show signs of sharing resources voluntarily, my prediction is that the West is willing to fight a nuclear war to preserve its lead which cannot happen in a democracy.

Without that war, Asia will take over as the center of commerce and innovation. The brightest will move there, which means that the remaining people in the West have to be innovative without the main ingredience for innovation.

This would be good for instances if a default custom collection could be added to the “subscribed, local, all” selection.

Then an instance could show the content it wants to represent.

Aren’t microcode updates erased after restarts?

They could, but what do they think will happen then?

Then you have more demand than supply because there is not enough coffee for everybody. This leads to people queueing and some people leaving without coffee.

What’s your opinion of Yanis Varoufakis’ explanation for the tariffs?

What do you mean? There are globally less coffee beans available. Or do you mean the 30%? That’s just an arbitrary number, as I tried to make clear by writing “Let’s say …”.

Kind of, if Yanis Varoufakis has it right

You believe that the accusation then and now were true and that everybody knew but nobody in the position of power prevented the takeover?

Why is the focus on Trump then and not everybody else?

To me it’s easier to believe that this is drama to distract from changes that are in a way necessary but unpopular.

How about this explanation:

There is a reduced supply of coffee beans. Let’s say 30%. This requires that 30% of customers have to be priced out of the market.

If the coffee shop owners only increase the price by several cents then the demand stays the same. They have to fight for coffee beans which drives up their costs step by step.

However, if they increase the price in advance, and far more than necessary right from the start, then the reduced demand matches the available supply and the value of the coffee beans roughly remains the same which allows them to profit from most of the price hike.

deter another large-scale Russian offensive after any ceasefire

Russia is fighting to prevent NATO troops in Ukrain. Am I mistaken or does this bind Russia to fight until they either collapse or conquer all of Ukrain?