Tamo

Isn't Dishonored somewhat of a spiritual successor?

I remember seeing a comic once about two devs, one complaining that this senior always puts lots of nitpicky comments on her code review, and the other replies that he always makes one obvious mistake, so the senior can point it out and feel like they've done their job

Do your thing internet, cos I cannot find it

Its simple greed and disdain for their users that they somehow believe if they begin to charge for something that used to be free the use base will simply eat it and be happy.

I'm by no means saying that they have no further role in the company, and you are absolutely correct that these companies need to continue to innovate. This is why I mentioned transitioning control to a better candidate, because the role of the CEO changes as the company matures.

Smart founders should find a way to continue to play into their strengths instead of clinging to the highest title, otherwise they will always need to be removed.

Generally the type of people who make good founders have to be dreamers to believe that their crazy idea not only can work but can change the world.

These people do not make good leaders as the company matures, as it now needs certainty for investors and detailed plans and structure instead of moonshot fantasies.

The same traits that make them good founders also make it difficult for them to let go of their position, or recognize that they should transition control to a better suited candidate, so often they must be removed by the board.

Source: Software Engineer in a tech startup

Starmer is utterly terrified of getting painted with the anti-semitism brush, and is massively overcompensating as a result

They're making him a lord

Worse, Cameron

For me personally, the answer to the original question would be "only once no other non-violent means are available".

Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.

Surely protecting is by definition preemptive since it means you are not allowing the violence against yourself or someone else to occur? Not saying your first point is wrong just doesn't seem consistent to me.

Only revenge/retribution would not be preemptive which imo is not better.

Absolutely not. Citizens can be just as much a victim of terrorist states as those they affect beyond their borders, and are just as deserving of humanitarian aid as any other civilian in an active warzone.