I have to wonder who decided that large breasts are supposed to be attractive. Like when did we have that conversation?
It's not like people are out there having enlarged shoulders. So it's not just the bigger is better.
I'm convinced that plastic surgeons just told these women that men find unrealistically large breasts more attractive simply because breast enlargement is an easy thing to do and it's a quick win for them.
That's a lot of interaction for a boycott, and I'm sure they would just ban your IP at some point. Of course there's always ways around that, but how much effort do you want to put into this boycott?
The biggest impact you could have on them would be for everyone to go over to Steam OS which I don't believe they support. It would be hilarious if they were forced to add support in order to stay relevant.
I don't think anything else would have much of an affect, because like I said their target demographic are kids, who don't really pay attention to this stuff.
Alternative history is sort of difficult because we don't know what the capabilities of those powers would have been. In order for the Nazis to have won the war a lot of people on both sides would have needed to make quite radically different decisions.
However it doesn't take much theorizing to suggest that Nazi Germany would have probably had nuclear weapons in that scenario (the Germans were moving in that direction towards the end of the war, but were never really able to make much progress because by that point they were losing badly and didn't have the resources anymore).
I can't see how Japan would have ended up with nuclear weapons though. So I suspect a certain amount of power imbalance would have existed.
The difference here is that the content is explicitly illegal in almost every jurisdiction in the world. And it's not as if Twitter (I'm not calling it x) is a niche platform that regulators may not have yet noticed.
It's a huge company that's doing very illegal things very much out in the open. That might fly in fascist land USA but I don't see why the rest of the world should put up with it.
You could say that some of the national borders as they exist right now are needlessly artificial.
Take Spain and Catalonia for example. The only reason that Catalonia is not an independent country is because Spain won't let them be. There's no real reason other than Spanish national pride and if there was a war between the two you could classify it as a civil war or you could classify it as a war between two countries, it's entirely a matter of opinion.
But I don't think that US politics has any real bearing on whether or not that happens. Political instability in the United States doesn't really lead to any obvious change in internal politics for other countries. External policies obviously would change but not internal ones.
A slight nitpick but Japan didn't side with the Nazis. They had their own thing going on with China and simply saw the Nazis as an opportunity for some payback. It wasn't like they really bought into the Nazi ideology as didn't really apply to them. The Italians were all in on it though.
Had the war turned out differently there would have been a radical cultural difference between Nazi controlled Europe and Japanese controlled Asia. In the long run it would have probably led to another war because of the extreme cultural differences.
The USA will be treated as even less trustworthy than Russia and China. Russia and China are of course untrustworthy but at least they are consistently untrustworthy. Everyone knows to give them a wide birth.
But the USA, they insinuated themselves into high-level defence pacts and international military cooperation. Then they decided to turn fascist and destroy everything for no readily apparent reason.
If there is going to be any repairing of fences, it's going to have to start off with the US paying for all the damage they have done to the world order and all of the renegotiating of contracts that has had to be done because they didn't feel like fulfilling their international obligations. And also justice, if the Trump admin don't end up in prison then the rest of the world is going to see that for what it is. An attempt to defend the indefensible, and therefore an indication that they have not truly changed.
Their website barely even works it honestly looks like a scam organisation. I can't find any description of what it is that they actually do which makes me believe that they don't do anything.
Yeah but because of their readiness to take bribes they have literally set about in motion events that are resulted in large numbers of people being killed.
European universities have always been prepared to take in talented American academics who feel that they are being suppressed in the United States. This has been going on for a long time. Particularly in genetics where the US tends to be quite oppressive due to fear of the religious right.
If the United States had to be summed up in one word that would would be "overconfident".
The level of arrogance that the US government has about its military simply based on its size is profound. Military size would be a highly relevant factor if your enemy was expected to engage on your terms. However for some reason this tends not to be the case and you end up spending the entire war defending your flank.
Look at Iraq, the US government sent thousands and thousands of troops in only for them to huddle in fortifications afraid to go out because of homemade explosives. Why didn't the massively superior US military simply shoot the enemy combatants. Oh yeah that's right because they couldn't find them because the insurgents decided not to engage the US in direct combat. End result, essentially complete defeat.
My cousin works as a geologist for a mining company and I've seen the conditions that they have to work in. Often in highly unstable areas with active militia trying to kill them. They have metre thick concrete walls around the perimeter and armed guards. Inside it's like a small city, and every single person there needs to be there there is no one who's playing tourist.
Trying to do that in the Arctic is an insane proposition. Concrete doesn't set well in the cold, the roads are clogged for much of the year, and most industrial mining equipment is extremely sensitive and doesn't work if it's out of temperature range, or if it's too windy, or if you sneeze on it.
Obviously America attacking Greenland would be devastating to global stability but it would almost be worth it to watch the absolute disaster that would be the attempts at resource extraction. It's just like with Venezuela, no one is actually interested in attempting resource extraction other than Trump. The amount of upfront investment and technical hurdles to overcome are enormous and any profits (assuming there are literally any) are a decade or more away. Unless Greenland is harbouring a otherwise undisclosed vain of diamonds wrapped in 24 carat gold then I can't imagine it's going to happen.
Really?