Let’s hold the UK government to its own words.

Official UK statement (13 Oct 2023):

Prime Minister deploys UK military to Eastern Mediterranean to support Israel (gov.uk, archiveve.today, archive.org)

The UK government claims its military deployment, including surveillance flights from Cyprus, is for “supporting civilians to leave Gaza.” However, this aligns with Israel’s efforts to forcibly relocate Palestinians from Gaza, which many legal experts argue could constitute a war crime or even ethnic cleansing under international law.

Defense lawyers are ethically obligated to plead for their clients; just as Otto Stahmer denied overwhelming evidence to argue for Hermann Göring’s acquittal, despite his documented role as a chief architect of the Holocaust. Meanwhile, England acts as a co-belligerent in Palestine, supplying arms to Israel, vetoing ceasefire efforts, and challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. Its refusal to recognize genocide follows a familiar pattern: admission would compel accountability for its own complicity.

And Putin isn’t a U.S. asset? While both countries are geopolitical adversaries, their military and strategic moves have ironically helped sustain each other’s defense industries; just not in a cooperative way.

Well, as much as I’d love a dramatic spy backstory, I’m afraid I’m neither an FSB nor an FBI agent. Just a regular person thinking out loud. I don’t have a definitive answer, just some suppositions. I share them so we can all explore the topic with arguments and counterarguments; no secret dossiers required! Open to hearing different perspectives.

I wasn’t claiming this was the only reason, just that it’s one possible factor. Here are some sources that highlight Russia’s role in supplying critical materials like palladium, titanium (via Kazakhstan), and nuclear fuel. While alternative sources exist, replacing Russian supplies isn’t immediate or simple.

Import Sources (2019–22): Palladium: Russia, 32%; South Africa, 31%; Italy, 8%; Canada, 7%; and other, 22%. Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-platinum-group.pdf

Palladium is critical to the U.S. economy and national security. Russia is the largest supplier of the metal to the United States. Source: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/ebot_russia_palladium_and_semiconductors.pdf

Apparently there was no titanium sponge import directly from Russia since 2022 sanctions. However 9% of imports come from Kazakhstan (VSMPO-AVISMA subsidiaries) Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-titanium.pdf

US scrambles to break reliance on Russian nuclear fuel Russia had a monopoly on HALEU until recently. Despite U.S. effort to remedy tis issue for them their nuclear industry still faces challenges in meeting its HALEU needs domestically. Source: https://www.ft.com/content/7ead1252-70a5-4258-8d0c-b01a65bd61f1

Russia remains a key supplier of resources critical to U.S. industry (titanium, palladium, uranium). While technically replaceable, developing alternative sources would take years. This makes the current moment less than ideal for imposing higher tariffs on Russia, particularly when the priority is to reindustrialize the U.S.

As far as I’m aware, contributions from major corporations to GNU Core Utilities specifically (e.g. sed, awk, ls) have been limited. Most development has historically come from the GNU community and individual contributors. For example, UTF-8 support was likely added through community efforts rather than corporate involvement. However, as these corporations increasingly back projects moving away from GNU and the GPL, their intent to leverage the permissive nature of the MIT license becomes evident. Should ‘uutils’ gain widespread adoption, it would inevitably lead to a significant shift in governance.

Yes, they do. The GPL’s copyleft clause requires companies to release the source code of any modifications they distribute, ensuring contributions back to the community. The MIT license, however, allows proprietary forks without this obligation. In other terms, the MIT license is effectively permitting companies to “jump out” of the open-source ecosystem they make use of.

While shifting to Rust might be a good idea for improving safety and performance, adopting the MIT license represents a fundamental change that will enable large tech companies to develop and distribute proprietary software based on the new MIT-licensed Core Utilities. This shift moves away from the original vision of the project which was to ensure that the software remains free and open as enshrined in the GPL’s copyleft principles. The permissive nature of the MIT license also will increase fragmentation, as it allows proprietary forks that diverge from the main project. This could weaken the community-driven development model and potentially lead to incompatible versions of the software.

Four years? The trumpism can survive Donald Trump, if it is what you are referring to.

Well, that doesn’t mean hope is high. Historically, France acquired nuclear weapons because it believes that only its own capabilities can guarantee its defense, rather than relying on the protection of another nuclear power. If France does not trust others to ensure its own security, why should its allies do that? In his speech yesterday, Macron emphasized that other European countries must develop their own defense capabilities. Furthermore, it is not a new concept that France’s nuclear arsenal also serves as a deterrent against attacks on its allies.

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dgris/politique-defense/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise

I try hard to avoid this biased and proprietary tool. Meanwhile I can admit that I sometime experiment with open source language models that I can run locally on my machine. That being said, thank you for your valuable input on this topic.

Emmanuel Macron is erasing any semblance of strategic ambiguity. France’s so-called “adversaries”, as depicted by the president, now have clear confirmation that the EU lacks the capacity to confront them effectively. Bound by its reliance on American technology, there is little doubt that the United States will ensure the EU remains dependent on its logistical support. At the same time, the EU’s dependence on Chinese industry and Russian resources leaves it vulnerable, as these powers will undoubtedly seek to weaken its position relative to theirs. In this climate of strategic weakness, pushing for escalation risks widening the gap between the EU and its opponents, further destabilizing both France and the EU on the global stage.

Moreover, Macron’s neoliberal approach reveals a troubling pattern - the burden of this effort falls disproportionately on the already struggling population, while oligarchs and the ultra-wealthy are exempt from meaningful contribution. By failing to demand shared sacrifice from all French citizens, the government undermines its own narrative of urgency. This unequal distribution of responsibility not only deepens existing inequalities but also erodes the social unity needed to confront challenges of such magnitude.

Which of France’s allies truly believes that, in the event of an imminent threat of conflict with a nuclear power, France would be willing to defend an ally? Given France’s history of double standards and frequent shifts in stance, such a commitment seems highly questionable.

Crimes against humanity are among the most serious offenses, second only to genocide. Someone capable of such crimes is hypothetically capable of all vices.

It’s challenging to engage with articles quoting individuals who support crimes against humanity. Still, if we give some credit to Blinken’s statement that ‘China may have stopped Putin from using nuclear weapons,’ it prompts an interesting question: Could someone have encouraged Putin toward using such weapons? And if so, is it possible that figures like Blinken are not entirely disconnected from this eventuality?

Thank you for your valuable insights! I agree that complaints, legal claims and boycotts are valid approaches to push for accountability.

Online accounts are not part of the primary purpose of acquiring the device. When purchasing a vinyl cutter or printer, users do not initially agree to a software license which is enforced later on with changing terms over time. Additionally, SVG files created with Cricut are expected to contain private information about third parties, such as addresses and messages, since the tool is designed for creating personalized items like cards and invitations. This raises serious data privacy concerns, as those individuals have not consented to their data being processed by Cricut, violating GDPR principles related to consent and purpose limitation.

Under GDPR, consent must be freely given GDPR Article 7 Conditions for consent. Cricut’s requirement to use cloud-connected software to operate a purchased machine restricts users’ freedom of choice, which is problematic because:

• Consent Cannot Be Conditional: Users are forced to accept cloud processing to use the machine for its primary purpose.

• No Real Offline Alternative: Without an opt-out option, Cricut risks violating GDPR’s standard for valid consent.

This also challenges GDPR Article 6 Lawfulness of Processing, which requires an appropriate legal basis for data processing.

Other references: Cricut Terms of Use (June 7, 2024), Cricut Privacy Policy (March 31, 2022)

| Don’t know what that is.

Apologies, I should have provided more context! Cricut is a company that sells vinyl cutter machines with printing features often used to create stylish cards, envelopes, and crafts. For example, you could receive a physical card or letter created with Cricut that contains your personal information (like addresses or messages) even if you don’t use their services. This raises concerns because files with such private data are automatically uploaded to Cricut’s cloud without user control, which. I think. infringe GDPR.

In a capitalist system, finding ethical funding models for free software is challenging but essential. Monetizing user data may seem like a viable solution, but it undermines the very principles of freedom and trust that free software stands for. Instead, we should explore community-driven models, such as donations, grants, or ethical partnerships, to ensure financial sustainability without compromising user rights. Supporting these alternatives is crucial to building a future where free software can thrive ethically.