𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

They calculated it should be fine, but it remained extremely experimental technology.

But yes they did it anyway.

Human Rights Watch is “zionist” now? Lmao

Yes.

I’m fairly certain only a small subset of (religious) children are told that story. It’s not a part of the ‘normal’ stories at least.

Usually it helps but not as much as most people think. Very few people actually use a privacy focused browser, so that in and of itself is surprisingly identifying.

That’s a bit of a strange way of describing it.

Mont St. Michel has been built, rebuilt and restored many times in the past. Lots of buildings from 1200 don’t exist anymore and collapsed over the years.

The spire isn’t necessarily a new invention either. Here’s an illustration from 1772 that does seem to show a (more romanesque) spire on the top as well:

It’s a different spire, but a lot of things have changed over the years. Viollet le Duc restored the site in the 19th century and added a neogothic spire (the famous one we all know now). Similar spires popped up all over the world, a notable example being the Notre Dame’s spire (which after the fire had to be rebuilt in the same way due to its heritage value).

The idea of a spire on the island isn’t new at least, and the neogothic spire does fit the island very well, both in looks but also in spiritual meaning. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a “fake” just for tourism purposes.

Have you tried ‘AAA’ or a hammer?

I don’t think it’s downplaying or “sweeping under the rug of history” to state facts about the Nazi regime. They did not do things according to the letter of the law. They did a judiciary takeover, allowing illegal acts to happen, and they did seize absolute power, murdering political opponents.

None of these things were possible without a good amount of popular support. And a lot of the population stood by and watched it happen, or even endorsed it.

I do worry you’re falling into the ‘trap’ that neonazis set. Neonazis like to state these things (eg “there’s no written order from Hitler to start the Holocaust”) to deny other historical facts. It’s important you engage these arguments correctly. By arguing against these things being true, you’re falling into the trap, because by and large these arguments aren’t wrong. There is indeed no written order for example.

It’s really important that you deny that the argument even holds any relevance in the first place. It didn’t matter that there’s no written order, the Nazis did it regardless. The Holocaust being illegal does not matter. You can argue the complications of a dual-state legal theory that’s not explicitly codified, and you’ll get lost in the weeds because there’s enough arguments to be brought up there. Instead, you must argue the Nazis didn’t need it to be legal in the first place. Doing so renders the legality argument useless in the context of Holocaust-denial.

The legality aspect is an interesting debate. But be careful that you don’t accidentally legitimize its use in Holocaust denial.

Carter, Bush Sr./Jr., Nixon and Truman were all lower it seems.

Why did they make the screens fold in? The Huawei Mate XT folds up in a z-shape, which imo makes more sense as you don’t need a ‘fourth’ outer display anymore. Seems more efficient that way.

Almost the entirety of computer graphics uses the z coordinate for depth afaik.

Even Minecraft does it.

Which one?

(Technically all the same, I know).

I think you’re reading things into my comment that aren’t there (given the other comments you left here).

First off, I’m strictly speaking about the legality of the Holocaust in the context of the written law at the time, because you wrongly claimed that “the Holocaust was legal”. The Nazi government was disorganized and didn’t exactly do everything according to the book. It’s how they took control and how they ruled. Hitler ruled by decree, but a lot of that were oral orders without formal legal backing. Trump makes vague attempts to keep his shenanigans remotely legal through executive orders; Hitler didn’t even bother with that. Hitler’s prerogative rule was not codified and so normative law should have applied.

As such, there’s no legal justification permitting the Holocaust. This isn’t because Nazi Germany was actually “good” or some other nonsense. Their legal system had broken down beyond repair, leaving those in power to act with impunity. The Nazis didn’t need the law on their side, as it had been rendered powerless.

We know there were Germans who attempted to investigate crimes at the camps. I believe I read about Josef Hartinger before, a lawyer (not an officer, misremembered that). He investigated murders at Dachau, but his reports were suppressed. After the war it helped convict some Nazis though.

There is an important distinction between immorality derived from the legal system and immorality derived from the lack of a legal system (thus usually derived from power). The Nazis derived theirs from power and the lack of strong legal protections. The Weimar state failed spectacularly in this regard.

None of this apologizes what the Nazis did of course. As you said and this post said, morality is not derived from legality. The Nazis effectively bypassing the normative legal system does not in any way justify their acts.

The legal system may fail to protect against immoral acts. But examining the cause is important, as the legal system is supposed to (in a fundamental sense) protect its citizens. When it fails to do so it is important to examine the why, so we may learn from it.

AFAIK it technically wasn’t even legal in Nazi Germany. Some German officer was actually investigating these crimes (abuse of prisoners in the camps) until the Nazis dealt with him (can’t remember his name though).

Even then, there was no law that legalized the Holocaust afaik. The Nazis just did it with impunity, because who would stop them anyway?

You know LIDAR data can be visualized as well, yes?

Element zapping is still a thing.

Sure but you’d expect the stock to go up after such a good result. The fact it’s gone down instead is still significant.

It’s down 14.5% over last month, despite record earnings. That’s fairly significant I’d say.

That’s a noun. It’s used as a verb in this card description, which is wrong.

There are StringComparison options to pass that allow you to ignore case sensitivity when comparing. No need for ToLower.