🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥
Blind (I mean literally, he said he supports doesn’t matter what) support to Putin and his imperial effort, public support for the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, helped gathering money for military equipment, showed up to the front to “support troops” and other stuff like that.
Wikipedia has a few lines, with a few sources linked.
You can see also a video (in Russian): https://smotrim.ru/video/2587296
Essentially the equivalent of an IDF groupie. Yuck.
Technically wouldn’t being a democracy be an aggravating factor for Israel wrongdoings, which makes the population more responsible compared to Russian or Belarussian one (therefore including athletes)?
I don’t really agree with the rationale, although I personally wouldn’t have supported a ban on Israelis athletes (similarly to how I generally don’t agree with the same ban on Russian athletes - unless you are specifically a supporter of values that go against the Olympics such as genocide…- e.g., I agree with Karjakin being banned from any chess competition).
What do you mean by “use”? Here the whole debable was about pre-school from what I understand. Russian is still studied as a language in primary school, let alone spoken home etc.
Also Latvian and Russian are quite different languages, although not so different as for example Estonian and Russian (where BTW similar measures in educations have been passed).
Good, let me give back the favour with all the violence threats and wishes. At least you are the only one in bad faith :)
Oh no, a comment in another context again interpreted from your US-centric view!
I mean, you think I care about your respect? A person who makes 0 effort in understanding other points of views (quite similar, ironically) and straight up insults and wishes death to others? Lol you are thinking way too much of yourself.
I also stand by every word of that comment, as the concept of white privilege doesn’t apply everywhere (Italy has a completely different history and racial dynamic compared to US).
Again, you have a colonialist mindset, and you are completely incapable of accepting that the US cultural lens is not the only lens that exists and that won’t apply to many. So tell whatever stories you want to yourself, shout as much as you can, but I am just explaining my views and providing cultural context (which has nothing to do with excusing or defending homophobia). You refuse to accept this context because you think that your perspective is universal. I will repeat it, colonialist mindset.
Removed by mod
You can also verify that “mortacci tua” (literally: cursing your dead ancestors) is a slur/cuss, but in Rome it is used 80% as a friendly expression. Just to make an example.
Culture and language exist beyond your google searches…
So your opinion on the use of an Italian word is not important, as you are not in the community (Italian speakers). Sounds good to me.
(Obviously I consider your argument BS, but happy to apply it both ways).
You are not reading at all, apparently. Shame, it’s useful sometimes. You should try.
“I don’t speak the language, you do, but I know better than you what is and is not a slur because every language has to work the same”. Frociaggine is hardly a slur, it’s a term that can be used in many contexts without any particular hateful undertone, although this applies to friendly contexts mostly. “frocio” is closer to a slur because it’s more personal, although in Italian is very common for slurs/bad words to be used in a completely different way too (see for example use of “stronzo”) or without the bad connotation. In Rome this phenomenon is particularly common.
You seem to have a colonialist mindset. Your culture/language apparently has to apply anywhere, no differences accepted.
Also, I am a radical leftist who is a full supporter of LGBTQ rights, and I fight the Church in Italy for decades. So you can put down your strawman.
Calling gaslighting telling you about a word that you don’t understand is the cherry on top :)
Unlike you (apparently) I speak the language, and my whole point is that it’s not really a “slur”. You can feel as you want about it, you can even feel attacked by someone wishing you good day, for all I care. It doesn’t change the fact that the word itself is not really that bad. It’s not comparable to " fag…" In English.
I see you are just a hateful person who is looking for reasons to feel prosecuted, at the cost of bending reality, so you can hate others. Suit yourself, I am sure your behavior will greatly help your community!
Edit: I forgot. You are wishing people to burn or worse in this thread left and right, with a half-asses understanding of what has been written. You are nasty even IF someone was defending the pope. Take it down a couple of notches.
So you have problems reading I guess. I am saying the slur is not the problem (because it’s not that bad in this instance), the institutionalized homophobia is one of the many systemic problems of the church that is not going anywhere even if you get a pope that speaks using pronouns.
So take a chill pill, being gay or even being right doesn’t give you the right to be a nasty person. Cheers
Dude I am from Rome, I want to see the Vatican in flames since way before people got upset from a very small thing among the many more serious reasons.
Few months ago when the Pope made timid openings to the LGBTQ community he was celebrated as a revolutionary. I am just saying, the word itself is not that bad and if this is the reason you feel such anger, and not the fact that the Church is an institution who did so many atrocious things (instituzionalized misogyny and homophobia among the many), then your judgment is just poor and you are getting angry for the wrong reason.
Pope dying unfortunately only means another one will come. I wish it was this easy…
Tbh the word he used is not that bad, or at least is used in many contexts in informal conversation, but only in very few I would consider it a “slur”. I wouldn’t say it translates well to English.
To be honest, I have never even heard of anybody who sued a service provider for failing to mitigate DDoS, or for letting an attack through a WAF, etc. I am quite positive that the contracts/T&C you sign when you subscribe to the services are rock solid, otherwise cloudflare would be under extreme liability. Also, usually you have the ability to customize the DDoS settings, choose thresholds etc. I really can’t imagine a company having any real chance of getting the provider to reimburse you. The only service that usually has SLA is the uptime of the CDN, which if breached should be compensated. I am quite sure that in the cheap plans the SLA is probably not very high.
Also, what you say about a customer that someone might want to take down is true for all customers that require DDoS protection. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t pay for the service on the first place. Cloudflare serves a bazillion customers who are much bigger targets than a casino, I don’t think they were afraid of the exposure. Also, when cloudflare receives a high DDoS attack, for them is awesome marketing. Imperva, Akamai, Cloudflare are basically identical and the selling point is exactly “how big can they tolerate?”.
Honestly rather than speculating on what we don’t know, I propose a simpler option: cloudflare plans are designed to get customers one foot in the door with a super cheap plan, to them each individual customer has basically no marginal cost. However, once the customers are in they can identify the ones they can squueze and find reasons to push more expensive plans. If they bump 1/30 of them, even if they other 29 will leave, they are in plus (250x29 < 10000 x 1).
To me this seems simply a business strategy. They specifically say “Unlimited & unmetered DDoS attack mitigation” in the cheapest plan, afterall.
I am in no way using this definition right now, I am using the definition you provided (established businesses) and I generally use it interchangeably with “licensed”, because to operate you need at least a license.
So it’s not a tautology.
There are enough illegitimate online casinos to create a problem for the whole industry.
Incorrect. Also creating a problem for is not defining the industry itself. There are phishing bank sites to create a problem for the banking industry, but only an idiot would answer “they steal your identity/card details” to the question “why are online banks bad”.
They don’t have enough users so they need to squeeze their regular punters harder.
Incorrect. You forgot to address “how”. I will also add another item to the “you have no idea what you are talking about”. Players losing is a sure way to lose even more customers. In fact if you knew something about the industry you would know that new companies operate on much lower margins that established ones. Bet365 might operate on a 7-9% margin, a new company operates on 1,2,3%. The idea that squeezing more existing customers, besides being technically impossible, is absurd. It’s a huge business risk (you lose your license and then you will have 0 customers).
Even your beloved “legitimate” casinos do “rig” games by offering different odds at different times to different people.
First, I don’t like casinos, despite having worked for one, I have played on less sites than you did. I like even less bullshit though, hence my pleasure in clearing the world from yours. Second, that is not rigging at all. You know it, I know it, it is absolutely not what you meant, and I am embarrassed for you for trying to use this terrible rethorical trick to now bend the word rigging. Rigging means that you expect the odds to win are X but instead behind the scene are Y (<X). Offering odds first of all is not a casino thing, it’s a sportsbook thing, and second of all is transparent to the user. Finally, odds obviously change over time, as estimated probability does…
Listen, you are just a guy on the internet with a big mouth and a family supply of bad faith. I showed you multiple times that your claim are bullshit and that much smarter people than you took care of the problems you claim affect casinos (rigged games and money laundering).
You failed to provide any argument from any of your claims and now you proved to argue in bad faith. As promised, I will make you a favour and block you, so you don’t have to keep embarrassing yourself. Take this as a chance to reflect on maybe not arguing on something you don’t understand fully, and maybe to learn from someone who knows more than you, as I try to do in the many occasions where I make mistakes or know little about something. Your claim at the moment is false. It’s a conspiracy theory that you repeat and might believe, but it’s false. Deal with it. You can use the very real and many reasons to consider casinos bad, do that.
Indeed I want to make a distinction. Because thinking legitimate casinos rig games is completely different from thinking scammy ones do.
In fact, you had no argument whatsoever to prove those do, including your external sources that recommended basically in all cases to stick to licensed sites, proving that there is a difference (duh). On the other hand, having worked in the industry and understanding both how casinos integrate games and how compliance works, I have explained to you why there are generally not technical means AND no economic incentive for legitimate casinos to rig games.
I will repeat the points for you:
The above applies to essentially every licensed casino, every legitimate casino.
You failed to acknowledge any of these points, and you argued for 15 comments about scammy websites, bringing now the conversation back to where we started.
The reason why I want an agreement that legitimate (not some!) casinos don’t rig games is specifically because I provided arguments (technical and economical) for why that’s the case. So your refusal to make any distinction while also refusing to provide any proof to support your claim just results in a vague and messy discussion, exactly like your insane definition of “online casinos” that includes scam websites. You refuse to be accurate :)
But a problem very much related to “what’s wrong with online casinos”.
It’s not. It’s something casinos (real ones) can’t do anything about, the same way banks or shops can’t do anything about. This is an extremely tiny problem because official means exist to recognize legitimate ones since there are trusted authorities that certify them. In fact, given the existence of central national authorities it is much easy to be sure that a casino is legitimate than a shop, for example. I will tell you more: rigged games (and therefore fake casinos) are a MINOR problem in the industry in general. It is absolutely a terrible argument to say what’s wrong with casinos, because it’s something the vast majority of the people will never even encounter in a life of gambling. However, there are plenty of reasons why casinos can be considered bad based on the regular operations of legitimate casinos, not based on your fairytales.
So yes, I am stuck on wanting an acknowledgement that legitimate casinos don’t rig games because I know how that works, unlike you. Here is how I conclude this conversation, since we are at a moot point:
If you fail to acknowledge tha rigging games is very very unlikely (I will keep the theoretical possibility in case there are suicidal CEOs) in legitimate casinos, then I will call your argument bullshit until you have any proof. Specifically, you should explain what economic incentive do legitimate casinos (licensed) to rig games, and how do you think they can do that. If you fail to provide any argument in support of this while also refusing to make a distinction in your original claim, then I know you are arguing in bad faith, so I will simply block you and move on.
I give up. You refuse to engage in good faith.
What user can tell is irrelevant, we are talking about your “taxonomy” and the properties that carries being in one or other category.
You might not be able to distinguish a legitimate casinos by a fake one, but if in your opinion legitimate ones also rig games, this is irrelevant. If they don’t, then what users can tell is a completely separate problem.
Nftables is the modern iptables FYI. Linux firewall.