"Progressive" is anyway a specific adjective that by itself doesn't mean much. Some Americans would call themselves more progressive than others because English is a (more) gender neutral language.
There are many papers that try to sound smarter by using the formal names/concepts of otherwise ubiquitous things, and those can be annoying. At least that's my impression in compsci. E.g. no need to write a whole paragraph about the definition of an N-norm if you're just using L1/L2
European history is basically "and these people there killed each other because they didn't like the pope" so it's not exactly a surprise we are less sensitive to "this is racist" rhetoric, when every single possible reason has been used to justify slaughtering each other. If St. Barthelemy was not racist, why should the crusades be?
American history is pretty much always them murdering non-whites, in comparison
Note that I'm not defending the reasoning, or the problems it creates today, but I see way too many people online acting like Europeans were all BFFs before the empires came up
And these machines exist, it's simply that the cost makes it hardly profitable. Any decrease in oil prices make recycling plastic that much less profitable
Sure, but ask the global south about the war in Ukraine, and you'll realise you're looking into a mirror. Most "anti imperialism" I hear is just from people pissed they get the wrong end of the stick, not that there's a stick in the first place. The "west bad" memes just appear as virtue signalling without much substance.
IIRC, ripgrep used a faster algorithm than grep, but more recent versions of grep are now shipping with a faster (the same?) algorithm. So the above suggestion shouldn't help much unless you use a very old grep.
Maybe if Germans stopped constantly betting on anyone that can undermine its neighbours to appease its own oligarchs, Europe wouldn't be in this mess. Germans would rather sacrifice every single east European than admit France was right. To their credit, this is probably less of a dilemma and more of an opportunity to them, so that was an obvious choice.
Your compassion is misplaced, the corruption of that racist genocidal country affect its neighbours first.
Laws are certainly different for american scum than they are for the locals. Consider yourself lucky for not having experienced it, instead of dismissing what anyone who's spent time around those terrorists would tell you.
I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your bootlicking, but just ask Greece how willingly they joined NATO.
Not unanimous, but not vetoed either (Russia and China abstained from voting).
Sarkozy's personal interest in the matter also make me doubt France's wouldn't have been different under any other government
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with the whole "the UN allowed it", and the general unrest in Libya before the intervention. Just adding context