Oh yeah, let’s call someone ‘using open source’ in terms of ‘to exploit’.

Maybe the US should also ban GNU licences, open hardware licences and force Linux to sell itself to Google while we’re at it. Then destroy all distros except chromeOS.
After all, China could exploit these open source software projects.

And in this way one no longer has to be confused about copyright and copyleft being opposite ends of free democratic nations and communist authoritarian empires. /s

Not really. The people get only two choices of candidates who are selected by campaign popularity. Those candidates have to raise the money for it by themselves, which means making truthful private campaign promises to their donors while making false promises to the public.

Social liberal is the center. Liberal is centre-right to right-wing.

That’s something only an idiot would use on his suitcase.

They didn’t “fight back”. They killed before any military action was taken.
It was a violent attack. It was an actual attempt to insurgency, rather than the Jan 6 revolt.

Only after the rioters killed over a 100 soldiers was military action taken.
Only after scores of soldiers dead,
did the military enter the street where the killings took place and did Chinese military kill the insurgents that killed their soldiers.
And during this time the protesters from the square were evacuated due to heavy violence from this one group of rioters.

What happened during Jan 6 was that the rioters all left the Capitol when the military arrived.
The rioters of 1989 did not.

The Jan 6 insurgents were more peaceful than the 1989 Tianenmen Square insurgents.

That’s because at least before any other student group decided to storm government buildings which was rumored to happen despite there already many police and soldiers present, one group of “peaceful” protesters decided to kill over 100 soldiers on the same street and one day before tank man decided to jump on a tank.

The “peaceful protest” was far more violent than the Jan 6 US insurgency was, since the US insurgents did not have such a violent group among them.

That happened in 1989.

It was the Capitol Hill Jan 6 insurgency or the similar Hong Kong 2019 insurgency but got way way more aggressive before any military action or counteraction was taken.

What Jan 6 and Tianenmen square share though is that once the insurgency took place the military was called in, but during the Jan 6 Capitol Hill riots, the rioters Capitol Hill rioters actually all left, not wanting to confront the military, while at least some of the Chinese insurgents on the street stayed and died fighting, while people on the square were peacefully evacuated.

Calling an insurgency a peaceful protest is indeed revisionist if one were to do so.

And calling a revolt an insurgency and calling insurgency where rioters kill over 100 soldiers a peaceful protest with counteraction against such insurgency a massacre is also quite the revisionism.

The timeline of Tianenmen 1989 is

• large continuing peaceful protests for US-controlled school education
• groups of students or “students” killing soldiers on the street
• evacuating peaceful protesters from the square + soldiers killing insurgents still active on the street
• train station incident, unrelated protesters block soldiers with strict orders from entering train
• tanks arrive on square and start patrolling the streets
• Man with shopping bags stops tank on the same street the soldiers and insurgents were killed, then jumps on it, other students drag him off the tank and away.

One group of students or “students” killed at least 100 soldiers before any violent counteractions or actions were taken by the military and that’s part of the 300 killed. The situation is very similar since such scenario could have happened if part of the Jan 6 rioters organized to inflict more violence and decided to stay after the storming and convinced part of the rioters to stay as well.

Calling the 1989 incidence in Beijing the Tianenmen Square Massacre is like calling the 2021 incidence in Washington D.C. The Freedom Plaza Killings where the Democratic Party ruthlessly slaughtered innocent civilians after a peaceful protest, with the exception that the protesters in 2021 were more reasonable and less violent than the rioters in Beijing. Especially for the fact that when Washington decided to send the military in, the Jan 6 rioters did not decide to stay and try to block the US military from entering the Capitol or Plaza.

I won’t be surprised to eventually see an actual equivalent type (demands from pro-palestine protesters for educational reforms) of protest happening in the US with far higher causalties as a result.

It will happen in a few years from now.

Are you sure it’s not 248 years?

Five mornings at Chucky’s

What concerns would those be, that the few US chip companies would have to be compete again?

To answer the question:

1. She didn’t know she was going to die on that bed.
2. She was asked to tell the story to researchers wanting to find a jewel.
3. She got caught up in her story.

Perfectly normal.

Now for what is not normal is that Rose is extremely coldhearted and selfish throughout the entire story, even when she’s telling the story from her perspective and one of her only redeeming qualities that she has is that she’s not Cal. But remember, this is HER version of the story. Imagine how the perspectives could have been wildly different from hers.
Anyway in HER version of the story…:

1. Rose denies her husband and children her wealth.
   She never told anyone about it and throws away the jewel
   that could have been extremely useful for her children or grandchildren.
   Their tuition, medical expenses, you name it.
   Not to mention it would have given the researchers
   closure to all of their efforts to find this treasure,
   which we now know will be fruitless.
   And she’s did it with glee, saying “Oops” with a smile.
   Oh yeah, spite those researchers and your children granny!
   We’ve really seen how awful they are, especially her children.
   And if she hated her own children, she could have given the money to charity.
   Or she could have given it to Jack’s family. But I guess the family of a hobo
   would never appreciate such a gift.
2. Rose killed Jack.
   She never regretted having hogged the wreckage that could have saved Jack’s life.
   Mythbusters proved that the life vests could have been used to give the wreckage more
   bouyancy that would have kept them both afloat.
   They could have taken turns on that wreckage. She could have given him her life vest.
   She could have stayed on the life boats, then Jack would have had the wreckage on his own.
   She could have traded herself in for Jack since she was the idiot having made the dumb decision of leaving the lifeboat.
   Jack died through her actions and for 70 years until her death this never occured to her.
   Not to mention, since she went on the life boat, she’s responsible for taking a seat that could have been taken by another person. A child, a man, a lady. That person would have survived.
   Or it could have been her maid Trudy, who died on the ship because there wasn’t enough space on the life boats.
3. Rose flips on her secret lover When Jack is being framed by her fiancée of being a thief,
   she lets him down by believing her fiancée’s lies,
   despite her telling Jack that she trusts him.
   I guess not.
   This almost gets Jack killed at an earlier time.
4. Rose knows that through her cheating, she is accidentally responsible for every single one of those deaths of that happened on the Titanic, including children and babies and doesn’t regret that at all.
   She could have felt guilt for not communicating clearly to Cal that this isn’t working out.
   That she made a mistake by going on board with this ship.
   But instead she secretly runs off, kisses Jack on deck, which distracts of couple of crew members that were specifically there to watch the sea for icebergs. She could have felt guilty for not having kissed in a more more private area.
   She could have felt guilty for cheating in the first place.
   And when her fiancée finds out that she’s cheating with him, she just reacts coldly towards him, to which he flips the table in rage and slaps her… in HER version of the story.
5. She doesn’t let her mother know that she’s alive.
   She lets no one know that she’s alive after the Titanic sunk. That includes her own mother.
   Instead she takes up the last name of the man she killed. Creepy.
   Speaking of her mother,
   when Rose lights up a cigarette and blows smoke close to her mother’s face, her mother asks Rose to please stop doing that, you know I don’t like that,
   She then responds to fully blowing smoke into her mother’s face.
   Disrespectful.
6. Her last thoughts before she dies are of her dancing with Jack.
   Not of her husband she lived 70 years with.
   Not of her children, not of her grandchildren.
   Just a hobo she had a fling with for two days… that she killed… among a thousand others.
   And she doesn’t think of her husband and children and grandchildren during those last,
   she doesn’t think of them during the entire movie. Never. Not once do we see them.
   What we do see are eight pictures on her nightstand. Every single one of them are of herself.
   Herself.

Now I said ‘one of her few redeeming qualities’ because she another one.
That is that she was 17 at the time,
and being played by a 20 year old Kate Winslet that’s a bit difficult to see.
However, even 17 year olds would be more responsible as she acts like a 13 year old,
since that’s what her character is actually based on, 13-year old Juliet from Romeo and Juliet.
But as much as this would have redeemed Rose’s actions on the boat as a teenager,
those reflections should have hit the Rose the grandma to put things into perspective.
That didn’t happen.

No way.
I’d have a lot more than just one homeless chick.