state-owned company where the 2 families owning the majority of shares block using the earnings to do any investment. The only thing were the state-stake comes into play is in not crushing unions in Germany (which they don't mind doing in the US) and not letting the whole enterprise fail (which it should ...)
just mount the whole root fs as a volume? or use bwrap or crun or runc to run your OCI bundle. Sadly the latter tools have some warts for this purpose...
ended up at a place like this too + in our project we, the devops-people, also develop and support the z/OS-data-integrations. I generally tell non-IT people it's like a sysadmin, but not the windows kind they interact with - you won't roll out fixes in 2 hours from testing to prod (including the process stuff) at that scale (PB of data-warehouse, some 1000 B2B-customers on different versions) if all you know is clicking buttons in Windows server.
> Industrialization is what brought prosperity to the masses.
workers organization did. Early industries were mostly run like slaveshops and the only reason we didn't end up in that world was that the reigning elite needed someone to manage the colonies and thus needed some people educated a bit more (which then also went into industry too) - which turned out problematic.
> They would have been the richest country in Latin America per capita
Oh, the former slave-owners for sure are. Likely too in Nigeria if you know how to look.
> Not sure I understand you correctly, but I strongly disagree that colonialism was a necessary foundation for todays wealthy western democracies.
Then go visit Sevilla and enjoy the output of the mines in the cathedral (no danger at all). And then think a little how amassing enough silver by slavery to make a 60feet high altar 300 years ago didn't give you quite a nice headstart on dominating a world where most other competing cultures valued the same metals as currency.
Not saying this is particularly wrong in the grand scheme or we need to all be in eternal deference to anyone claiming to be a descendant of the people our ancestors exterminated for this. But it should be clear, getting access to these resources and ruthlessly exploiting them made Europe rich and enabled all the other colonialization which followed.
> And then think a little how amassing enough silver by slavery to make a 60feet high altar 300 years ago didn't give you quite a nice headstart on dominating a world where most other competing cultures valued the same metals as currency.
This is where we disagree. My position is that colonialism was a consequence of post-medieval Europe being dominant, instead of the other way around.
I'm not disputing that colonialism profitted the perpetrators, but I think giving it major credit for 20th-century Europes wealth is just a misattribution (if I had to reduce that to one word it would be "industrialization" and not "colonialism", very clearly).
Early ~1900 power dynamics are another strong indicator-- even at the height of colonialism, the nations engaging very heavily in it (British, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch) struggled to keep up with Germany which did not get significant benefit from it at all.
I would also argue that the biggest value of colonies was less in the raw extraction of ressources, but instead in the trade/arbitration (and additional markets) that they enabled (i.e. the big value-add was not so much stealing the silver out of the ground in Argentinia, but instead the act of getting/selling it to China).
> But it should be clear, getting access to these resources and ruthlessly exploiting them made Europe rich and enabled all the other colonialization which followed.
I'm not GP, but the connections you're making between this sentence and the sentences prior to it are the suspicious ones. What you need to do is argue against the claim that it those things that allowed for the accumulation of all this silver that allowed for the success of colonization.
reply