Cool. How many oil billionaires do you have amplifying your messaging? Because if it's less than two I'm afraid your opinion matters less than Gardiners.

Not familiar with the specific law in question, but for a lot of laws intent and knowledge at the time of crime matter. Eg the difference between manslaughter and murder is a difference in attitude.

I could plausibly see that in this case there is not enough evidence to determine what the mind set was, while the physical action still undoubtedly took place.

Eg in Germany showing the Nazi salute or displaying a swastika are illegal, except for artistic or educational purposes. A case could be constructed in which a defendants intent when showing either the gesture or the symbol could not be clearly deduced. This not enough evidence exists wether a crime was committed, even though the physical action that would constitute the crime undoubtedly happened.

Could be a similar thing is at play here.

Germany is Europes biggest country by population and GDP (not counting Russia and Turkey for population). It makes perfect sense for them to be the biggest spenders on defence as well.

Ironically the ultra right wing AfD party is actually against the rearmament, but that is mostly because they are Putin's puppets. (They claim fiscal responsibility concerns but this is a laughably transparent excuse)

Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

"If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges."

While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

"The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope."

The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

As I understand it "All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is... like... super cool" would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.

The toolset they use to run their containerlike system wrapping the games is called "pressure vessel".

I'm not going to tell you that you're managing your information wrong. I would physically die if I had ever more than 20 tabs (my ADHD couldn't handle it).

But I think you might be using the wrong tool. A browser (like Firefox) is not really designed as an information manager. It's primary purpose is navigating and visualizing web pages. So when you talk about "a few megabytes of text and images" thats not what your browser sees. Your browser handles more than just the text and images. It also handles fetching and prefetching, a browser history for every tab, a JS context and much much more.

What you want is some kind of personalized archiving system that processes websites into machine processable (ie searchable) structures. Firefox is not that. Maybe data hoarder communities will have the answers you seek.

Yes. But the state still has to prove that what you did was a) a Nazi thing and b) that you either knew or should have known it was so.

So if you show the Hitler salute, you'll be arrested and fined. If you give a speech in which you suggest that immigrants need to learn "the liberating power of work" (referencing the Motto of Auschwitz "Arbeit macht Frei" "Work makes Free") that is totally fine.

Luckily, you can just pick your uniform and wear it daily. It's pretty much what I did. For everyday wear I have like 3 different pants, 3 different sweaters and a bunch of T-Shirts that go with them. So while I personally am basically in uniform daily (and many people wear identical or near identical clothes every day) I'm strictly against society encouraging uniforms in any way shape or form.

For many people wearing a uniform is obligatory at their work (retail and gastronomy workers, construction and maintenance workers, facility staff at larger buildings or events, Any kind of service person that will be seen by the public (e.g bus drivers, cleaners,...). And that is even without counting people who have to follow a strict dress code at work to the point where it might as well be a uniform (white collar office work, e.g).
So overall I dare say a majority of people actually wear uniforms in their professional lives. And even if you aren't as liberal with your interpretation of "uniform" as I was in the paragraph above (where I considered a hard hat and a high vis vest as a uniform), it is still a significant portion of the population wearing uniforms regardless.

And in a professional context I can see a point to uniforms: They remove individuality and emphasize the belonging to a larger group/organization. This can be helpful in situations where cohesion (e.g construction work, policing, school uniforms etc...) or uniformity of standards (gastronomy, public services) are more important than individual competence/style.

However, in a private context, I object to any kind of uniforms being worn or even worse, any kind of societal encouragement (which always turns into pressure) to wear uniforms. Uniforms are by their nature a limitation on your most basic form of freedom of expression. History has shown that any society that encourages uniformity over individuality in a private context will sooner or later enforce not just clothing standards but other behavioral standards too, usually to the detriment of marginalized groups. (What I'm saying is, it is a short step from "You should wear this." to "You shouldn't wear this." and from there to "You should(n't) do this" and "You can't do this.")

There is rather to many societal norms around what is "correct" or "appropriate" clothing already and I think your phantasy about uniforms comes partially from that pressure. I'd rather a society where no one gives a fuck what you wear, than one that "encourages" dress codes. And uniforms are IMHO a step in the wrong direction.

Being a democracy has nothing to do with committing war crimes.

It gets better. He resold one of the paintings in question for a profit of 320 million$. He is suing because his speculative profit wasn't big enough.

Shit or get off the pot.

I love "yeet cap rn".