It's an arbitrary list of clothing items that is supposedly put together to "promote a good and positive image of chess", regardless of where you come from.
"Business casual (European standards), which means long trousers or pants, shirt, jacket, with or without tie (no t-shirts, no polo, no jeans, no sports shoes or sneakers or slippers, no hats or caps (except for religious reasons) and the equivalent style of dress for women players.
National costumes and team uniforms are allowed."
It quite literally says "European standards."
National costumes -- I don't know the context here -- usually means vetted traditional clothing (such as, for India, a sari, but not the much more common selwar suit). It also -- by definition -- excludes minority groups (for example, Inner Mongolia or Tibet in China, or the Kurds in Turkey). There's also the very practical matter that "minority groups" include neurodiversity too.
The whole point is to judge people on their chess and not on their looks. It's the exact same issue as professional hairstyles or, before that, professional skin colors. A 1930-era US or German management consulting firm would obviously look worse to clients with a non-white consultant. There was an objective reason to discriminate in positions. That didn't make it right.
In either case, if the goal of FIDE was to make money, discriminating would make complete business sense, regardless of ethical value.
If the goal is to promote chess, people should be able to see themselves in the game, and participate regardless of how they choose to look. Back to the management consulting example, in 1930, a qualified black management consultant would serve the additional benefit of being an ambassador to and role model for their community.
I find people who use it in a derogatory don’t do much actual thinking to start with.
The literal origin of its use in social justice realms was to put an emphasis and value on critical thinking.
By pondering the nature of society one can be “awoken” to the deeper sociological forces which shape individual lives.
I’ll freely admit the term has been perverted by a range of actors with motivations I disagree with.
But the original meaning and intent is valuable: all of us live in a world of hidden boundaries and power structures, but seeing that requires thought.
Many people don’t want to think for themselves, and they hate those that do.
Part of being woke is usually seeing others as asleep and not as enlightened, which means it's ok to lecture them to hell and back. There's a difference between thinking critically and looking for problems to feel superior.
I agree to an extent, I think the term lost the original meaning.
My main complaint with the state of politics is too little thoughts and reflection. I think cable news, talk radio, and social media are the root cause.
Reading a daily newspaper or viewing the nightly news gives you a full day to think things over. We are more driven by emotion as a result of never having time to digest and reflect.
You aren't wrong, but to be entirely fair, the original meaning of "woke" came from the black activist community and referred to the hidden boundaries and power structures of systemic white supremacy, ignorance of which could directly threaten their lives.
I think it's important to remember that specific context when talking about where "woke" as a concept comes from, its general acceptance within the leftist community has, unfortunately (and maybe inevitably,) come with a bit of whitewashing.
Crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine. Even when we look at the crypto donated, most (EDIT: half) of it was dollar denominated [1].
> Even when we look at the crypto donated, most of it was dollar denominated [1].
Have you at least read your source? 120 of 225M were BTC + ETH.
> Crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine.
Crypto is there barely since the Second Maydan, of course Ukrainians managed to survive without cryptocurrencies.
If you look closely on your arguments, you will find just a rejection without any arguments. Didn't you observe the recent news about Xenia Havana who donated $50 from her American bank account being in Russia and therefore went into jail?
Sure. I never said crypto is useless. But something being randomly meaningful to one person doesn't make it "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
A human went to jail because of using obsoleted money transaction technologies and you are really judging the fact by the amount of her donation - just to protect your misjudgement about cryptocurrencies? Are you even Ukrainian?
> Sorry, meant to say half. Corrected. Thank you.
Even if it would be 99%, so what? Why are using this as an argument?
I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
> Even if it would be 99%, so what?
It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. It's a derivative financial system, and one completely subject to U.S. law, surveillance and sanctions.
The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.
> I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
Your saying isn't reasonable because you are talking about tangential things to cryptocurrency. Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful. Amount of donated funds by Ukrainian anti-Russian adventure is not.
> It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.
It is as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?
> Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful
Sure. Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
> as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?
No, it absolutely isn't. The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value. A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.
> Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."
I don't say an opposite. An entire counter-claim about "donations to Ukraine was only 217M" is not an argument against Bitcoin, despite your efforts to present it so.
> The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value.
LOL the crypto is one of established commodities perfectly fitting for inter-government trade.
> A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.
I don't understand why it is important. A couple of thugs believes they can call "money laudering" anything they don't like, and what? Their presence is clearly diminishes because they have no ways to control cryptocurrencies.
Sure. But within the context of a money-laundering article, it's important to note that dollar-denominated crypto exists at the whim of the U.S. government. It is globally subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and uniquely vulnerable to U.S. surveillance and sanctions.
This is not a property of stable coins, but of permissioned stable coins only. Decentralized permission less stableclins like DAI etc. are beholden to none.
Bit of a tangent, but the fundraiser that the Canadian government froze was initially organized by a Canadian secessionist and a white nationalist, and during that protest (and possibly unrelated) weapons were seized at a border crossing from members of diagalon, a white nationalist group that wants to carve out parts of Canada and USA to make a “white” nation.
Unlike your other examples, that one is an example of using crypto for nefarious reasons.
Ah, so there was a procedural issue in prosecuting the group with a cache of guns that wants to carve out a white nation out of Canada and the US. My mistake.
This doesn’t change the point that from the perspective of the Canadian government, they were facing 2 racist separatist groups at a time, and one of the groups was raising a LOT of cash while leading an occupation of the capital.
This is a valid scenario for seizing funds, though maybe the fact that groups like Diagalon and Wexit are a “meme” should be considered more closely.
In the case of Wexit, Tamara Lich was a founder, and she buddied up with Pat King for the fundraiser, who is a self avowed white supremacist, like he's literally on twitter saying white people have the "strongest" bloodline.
If someone who is involved with multiple "Canada for Canadians" movements joins forces with a known racist, I would take the odds and bet good money that person is a racist.
Which European countries are close to becoming communist? And what protection does it offer then if said communist countries use violence to collect private wealth?
Mélenchon in France has big scores wants to take 100% (everything) on income tax above 30k per month per individual. Do this and I will instantly get paid in crypto and have a new nationality
Even if that were to happen (which I cannot see as the PS polls around 12%) it would be a far cry from actual communism. Also, how would crypto help if the situation would be permanent and you stayed there?
Also if you are Russian living outside of Russia then good luck having a bank account, since European scumbags effectively consider any Russian as villain.
But nevertheless, in the real world, Apple employees don’t care much about Epic Games. A lot of them probably have a personal account on Epic Games Store to get their free games. Like the random people they are.
Pay attention to not mix up the marketing bullshit drama of those companies around this trial with the humans working for theses companies. I doubt anyone working in there is bothered with this trial (appart from legal departments).
CDG (North of Paris) is on the railway that joins Brussels, Paris, Rennes, Tours, Bordeaux and a number of other major places in France. ORY has a connection with Paris suburban railway network, no direct access to one distance train.
Right. ORY is very close to Massy TGV (2 stops or so on the suburban train) which goes to the west (Rennes) and south (not sur if Bordeaux or Lyon or both).
If contract also stated/warned that there may be an increased final price then it'd be frustrating if it's such a high increase but then they were told; I don't know what their contracts said in full.
But on a purely logical level (I assume that legally things stand differently), it's effectively the same: without an agreed date limit, they could just delay it infinitely (unless the customer submits to some extra charge/price hike) and the buyer would be in a much worse situation than with a cancelled contract because the seller could pop up any day "now you get your roof, give us the money, now"
I agree thee kind of papers seem like a hairsplitting contest.
Especially if you talk to people who ACTUALLY and SUCESSFULLY control their size... for (non hardocre) bodybuilder its pretty much IIFYM and for fighters who cut for fights its "just eat less bro, yes its hard.. are going to complain lol ?"
