Doesn't apply because Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions states that "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war", with a mercenary being defined as a person joining the conflict for personal gain, which these individuals seem to be from their own accounts.
Laser
joined 10 months ago
Time to sell Tesla to xAI
Good work, comrade
PS I do think vdL is terrible, but for completely different reasons.
Not as a helpful measure. Just a punishment
Which was the whole point of the thread: it doesn't matter by which power you get exploited, China doesn't give a fuck about other countries either and they'll happily fuck up other countries' environments.
Cut off the face-eating part
Well, not really. Twitter was his own private property that he bought with borrowed money secured against his Tesla shares. xAI on the other hand is financed by investors whose money he used to bail himself out at a price he made up himself since Twitter is no longer publicly traded. So this is, in my opinion, misuse of investor funds; the picture would be true if xAI used how own money to do this, but no.
On one hand,I think this is serious fraud. On the other, my understanding for anyone investing into his companies is very limited, there are so many red flags on so many levels.
But it’s geared for the convenience and privacy of the average user not military security.
Military security (or military grade whatever) is a buzzword that makes sense in some contexts. In a lot of them, it doesn't.
For example, for a lot of military-grade products you can have assumptions that are not always given for a platform that messenger operate on. Like that the device is always stored in a secure location. That it's administered by trained personnel. That the device operator has received training on proper usage etc. In fact, a lot of military systems probably couldn't be operated securely in a John Doe context b because of environmental security requirements. In that regard, messengers have to be more secure.
It appears that Germany has updated their information several times. So much so that your second link gives me a 404 error
It hasn't been updated, but Lemmy thinks the colon is part of the URL. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/reiseundsicherheit/suedsudansicherheit-244250 it's not about the US but South Sudan, to show what an official travel warning looks like. The US page is just advisory.
Germany
I don't know for other countries, but Germany has not issued any travel warnings. The page with information to the US is the following: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/service/laender/usa-node/usavereinigtestaatensicherheit-201382. It contains only information, but no advisory against traveling which a warning usually contains stuff that one might call warnings, but they formally aren't. Compare it with https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/reiseundsicherheit/suedsudansicherheit-244250: The title of the page contains "(Reisewarnung)" which translates to "warning against travel". The page contains the wording "Vor Reisen nach X wird gewarnt". Only those constitute a warning. No such warning can be found on the page about the US.
Personally, I can only advise against traveling there, but the page for the US has existed basically always. New information was added this month, but the official status / stance on US travel hasn't changed: the US is on the same level as France and Spain.
$800, or about 5€.
view more: next ›
The Chinese numbers regarding economical growth can't be trusted anyways, I'm not saying they won't be able to withstand the tariffs, but their numbers are as good as Xi wants them to be.