ormr

And it’s 100% in accordance with international law.

Would be nice to be able to pick out individual source polluters for a range of substances

We can already do that today with inverse modeling of atmospheric substance transport and the satellites you mentioned. Heard a talk about the topic on a conference 4 years ago. That’s how scientists could pinpoint the emission source for some illegally emmitted CFCs in China (and afaik the Chinese govt acted accordingly). With high resolution data you can also use these methods to detect methane leaks in gas pipelines etc.

+1 for such an extensive, well-founded rant

Interesting read. The statements by SJP are really disgusting and the Maoist revolutionary rethoric is repulsive to say the least.

That might be the case in the US where capitalists have much more influence over election outcomes and politicians themselves are often part of dynasties that accumulated enormous wealth. This is however not comparable to many European countries. Sure, you have capitalists in all capitalist societies. But their direct influence on election results is much smaller and politicians are very often ordinary people and not obscenely rich or privileged by their ancestry.

A whole different aspect is that these ordinary people, once they came into power, lend their ears way too much to capitalist interests and the likes of lobbyists, often ignoring the problems and needs of ordinary people and focussing instead on catering to the industry.

The people could however not vote for these politicians if they realized that their policies thwart their own interests. If they fail to do so, it’s their own fault that the conditions for the majority are not improving. How can you fix the stupidity?

It’s not contradictory but thanks for repeating my sentence with different wording.

Sovereign countries can choose their alliances freely. Of course it’s Russian paranoia to be fearful of the NATO expansion. NATO would not start WW3 by invading Russia. And NATO expansion is the direct consequence of Russian imperialism. Russia’s neighbors are afraid of Russia which has proven time and time again that it can and will use military force to subjugate it’s neighbors. We’ve seen it under the reign of the Tsar. We’ve seen it during soviet times and we’ve seen it in modern Russia with Chechenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine… You have to be willingly blind to overlook all these cases of military aggression out of paranoia and megalomania. Do you think the largest country on earth was created by peaceful negotiations and hugs? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Your “ample evidence” is fabricated by the spin doctors in Moscow. Congratulations for drinking up that propaganda so willingly.

Nevertheless Ukraine had physical control over these nuclear weapons although it couldn’t have launched them. Ukraine also had claims to the black sea fleet and gave up on both in the years before the Budapest memorandum in which the above-mentioned security guarantees where given. In hindsight that was probably a mistake and the west should have used Russia’s weakness to break Crimea and the black sea fleet out of Russia’s hands for good to avoid future conflict and cripple Russia’s geopolitical ambitions which where always fueled by paranoia. But you can’t be that paranoid about losing sth. that you don’t have anymore.

Russia can’t be trusted to adhere to the contracts they sign. They will even invade and terrorise a country they themselves called “brothers” for a long time. It’s utterly shameful and all you have to say about this is “bUt nAtO DiD bAd tHiNgS!!1”.

Russia had already acted in bad faith and abandoned it’s contractual obligations with regard to giving security guarantees (!) to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons on their soil after the fall of the soviet union. The Minsk negotiations took place AFTER Russia illegally annexed the Krim and moved troops into the Donbass to stage an insurrection.

Now you could say that some Western nations also didn’t honor their obligation to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty. But doing so would’ve meant open war with Russia so it’s partly understandable why they acted this way. And at least the West didn’t outright invade the country the pledged to protect like Russia did. It’s indefensible and you white washing these rogue and terrorist acts just shows what an utter deplorable piece of human garbage you truly are (did I word this correctly?)

An UN official having an opinion doesn’t make any claim about genocide in Gaza a fact btw.

I only agree that we shouldn’t view Russia or Russians as fundamentally evil of dehumanize them with language like “orcs”. But really… do you view Russia as a liberal democratic state? I’m sorry but are you out of your mind? And surely they are not led by ordinary people but by a class of oligarchs under the lead of the godfather of this mafia state.

Also you say you don’t care about border disputes between countries. You’re wrong that this is up to the people sharing this border. Legally that’s a very ignorant statement as there are very good reasons that the UN member countries are extremely reluctant to accept any changing of borders, especially not by force. International law puts emphasis on stability of borders. Also it makes border conflicts every countries’ business. So yes: Even as a Euro-American you’re very much entitled to have an opinion about it and legally it’s your countries’ duty to have a stance on it. No one is on the sidelines here.

You’re the one posting stupid shit again and again. Russia shouldn’t have invaded, period. No country in the EU longed for war with Russia. On the opposite Russian governments have a very long history of being absolutely paranoid, thus justyfing annexation and assimilation of countless territories and peoples for the sake of “feeling secure”. It’s absolutely ridiculous to fall for this shitty narrative that fits so well with the rest of dumb Russian propaganda.

Likewise there is no genocide in Gaza. If you’re in support of a terrorist group using hospitals, kindergartens, mosques, etc. to hide, keep hostages and store explosives, I’m really wondering how wicked one can be. Maybe you’re an antisemite?

For a stranger kind of fantasy: Gormenghast books by Mervyn Peake

Ironic that the Helvetii fought the Romans only for their descendants to use a Latin abbreviation as their country code :D

deleted by creator

Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.

I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google’s rules, I’d have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry… Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.

He knows that he’ll lose power once that war ends. He will prolong it as long as he can. Of course he doesn’t care about the lifes of his own people, never did.

We have all kinds in my city: Medieval cobblestone, brick roads and asphalt. As a cyclist I have to tell you that I hate all kinds of brick roads that I have encountered. Even when they’re not the horrible middle age version, they will often get deformed by roots or depression of the ground quite rapidly, making them even more bumpy. For this reason I think, I saw in Sweden in an otherwise bricky city center that they had a narrow asphalt lane on the side of the road for cyclists. I was just amazed that someone would spend that much thought into what’s great for cyclists. As a cyclist I really love asphalt :D

What is a “serious gamer”?

That’s right, it depends on the place. Very much boils down to rural vs. urban (as in so many countries) but it’s also a bit worse in Eastern Germany.

However the comment above is not wrong, in that there are definitive limits to free speech in German law so that you have more legal levers against nazis before they turn to violence.

Didn’t they use these tactics with more success in the beginning? Why did they fall back to this model?

Hahaha, first it was “that never happened!” but now it’s “that was only 2 days ago!”.

You should really think about the logic of your arguments.