I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement"
how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?
by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...
You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people.
I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.
> how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?
News reports from both Russia and Ukraine stated he was the commander of K-148 Krasnodar, a submarine that at the time of his command engaged in missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.
From a BBC article:
> Ukrainian media has said he could have been in command of the vessel when it carried out a missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia in July 2022, which killed 28 people, including three children.
Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.
Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran? You imply it would be any military officer, anywhere, at any time, retired or not.
Correct. The US assassinated Iran's leader and dozens of their military officers. Do you seriously believe Iran would somehow be in the wrong to kill any American officer it can?
It is eerie how closely the American mentality parallels that of the German regime. "The Nazis entered this war on the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody and nobody was going to bomb them."
I understand your sentiment, but all parties, including the Israeli state are signatories and have ratified the Geneva Convention, making the actions of Israel and it's American attack oaf (full disclosure, I am American, whatever that even still means) war crimes, and technically based on the precedent from the Nurenberg trial, makes the USA and arguably its accessory, Israel responsible and guilty of all war crimes due to initiating the illegal war of aggression, the "mother of all war crimes".
We are facing a far greater calamity than I get the sense most really have any understand for. Effectively all international institutions have exposed themselves as some variation of incompetent, shams, husks, utterly ineffectual, and even downright evil (e.g., condemning Iran essentially for being attacked) because the subordinated, pathetic vassal dungeon gimp countries and institutions are afraid and/or seek continued favor and the approval of their suzerain master/King.
I get the sense this is coming as news to you. But it was always this way, going back as far as international law has really been a thing.
The Nuremberg trials were a glorified kangaroo court, so obviously a sham that even a US Supreme Court justice voiced their opposition. They made a mockery of the concept of law, trying people for laws that did not exist at the time the alleged crimes were committed, and more to the point, even for war crimes that the US and Allies themselves also committed and did not prosecute themselves for. The concept of "war crimes" has never been anything more than a thin veil over winner's justice, dressed up nice and pretty to seem less barbaric. And, to be fair, the Nazis were unfathomably barbaric and earned barbaric treatment - I doubt many would particularly object to summary execution of high-ranking Nazis after the war. But the US turned its retribution into a massive propaganda coup about international justice, upon which it placed itself as the ruler of.
The US, of course, exempted itself from international justice. Ever. Not only does it not punish its own war criminals, it refuses to ratify any treaties like participation in the ICC that would give international accountability to its own soldiers for war crimes, and even further still, it signed into law an act that authorizes the invasion of the Netherlands if an American were ever to be tried at the Hague. Whatever you thought international justice was, for your entire life, has been a propaganda-laden sham. It never existed. The only thing that ever existed was winner's justice. The winners kill the losers at their pleasure. That's all it ever was. In the sense that there's a calamity, it's not because of the collapse of any international institutions, because they were always an illusion made to benefit the powerful.
I am not at all sure what point you are trying to make, because I was not making any point. I was just asking a question to, I believe, suss out a point that is seemingly far closer to what you are saying than not. I was asking the question to make the person think, follow the logic to at least a a few steps, because the mentality that was being expressed is extremely reckless and dangerous, let alone criminally illegal, i.e., assassinating military officers hors de combat.
The problem humanity now faces is that one side in this conflict is extremely psychopathic and narcissistis that will do anything and everything to retain control and power.
what do you think of theory that denuclearisation movement in west europe was funded by CCCP? it makes sense to think CCCP/Putin would finance subversive movements to remove nuclear and coal and make the region dependent on russian energy exports
They fund other stuff that weakens and divides Europe too like the separatist movements in Scotland, Catalonia etc.
That's not to say that all the people in these movements are Russian agents or that these groups don't have some good points and legitimate grievances, but nonetheless they are an easy, cost-effective way for Russia to attack us.
Of all the silly things I’ve seen Europe do over the last 20 years, getting rid of nuclear plants has to be one of the strangest. Sure, we all want solar but it’s not there yet. Hidden forces here would not be a surprise.
That sort of event doesn't fade away quickly and definitely influenced energy policy that persists to this day. Thankfully the tide is turning due to safer designs.
Nuclear power has an LCOE that is 5x the cost of solar and wind. Nobody would build it on cost alone.
The only reason countries build and run nuclear power plants is because it shares supply chain and a skills base with the nuclear military.
Which means they have nukes (France, Russia, US) or they they want to take out an option to one day build a nuke in a hurry just in case for a threat that is usually very obvious (Sweden, Japan, South Korea).
This was clearly recognized when Iran started building nuclear power plants but when Poland suddenly got interested in 2023 ostensibly "because environment" after decades of burning mountains of coal nobody batted an eye.
> when Poland suddenly got interested in 2023 ostensibly "because environment" after decades of burning mountains of coal nobody batted an eye.
Polish discussion about nuclear energy has always been openly tied to national security and energy independence, given its/Europe's reliance on Russian energy exports. Especially given its northern geography, nuclear is better for base load stability. (The environmental is also important, and strides have been made to reduce emissions.)
Of course, there has also been discussion in Poland about nuclear sharing or even seeking to acquire/build nuclear weapons itself, also openly, but I don't think anyone is actually pursuing this in earnest.
Isn't power to gas still ridiculously inneficient?
Last I checked it seemed like something pushed by gas companies since it upholds gas infrastructure and most of the intermittence is currently supported by gas.
It's very costly compared to normal gas but it's still marginally cheaper to use solar and roundtrip p2g to use on a cold, windless night than it is to use nuclear power produced on any day of the year.
There's just zero economic incentive while polluting gas is dirt cheap and maxxed out solar and wind rarely even covers 100% of current electricity demand.
there arent enough retail investors in the world to buy this ipo
but they will get a lot of flow from sovereign wealth fund and pensions
you might wonder why anthropic spend time in australia, a country with less economy than canada and almost no industry at all? likely because it has very big pension fund pool to buy their ipo
I like that saying but those are all entrepreneurs right? Where are all the philosopher wannabe billionares? From my experience they seem pretty happy in relatively low paying professor jobs.
I doubt that anyone could categorize the manosphere phenomenon as philosophy. Without empathy you can't really have philosophy. Or, at least not the kind that you can take seriously.
nassim taleb is primarily a philosopher who pretends to be a hedge fund guy, jordan peterson, robert kiyosaki, tim ferriss maybe, sam bankman fried, the tech lead yt
archetype is people who sell their success as a model for you to follow while having none themselves, wrapped up as some kind of philosophical position, so they can make money
lots of self help authors, failed vc funds, podcasts
I don't think Peterson is a philosopher or an entrepreneur. Does debating college kids make you a philosopher now? Is that the bar? At least mention Žižek. He's an actual, present day philosopher.
Jeez what a way to dismiss the second largest continent and the second most populous landmass in the world.
I'd argue Africa is the best place to start such a thing. Cheap labour, plenty of renewable energy. The biggest issue it probably has is how little bandwidth it has, and might require additional sea cables.
But "africa is africa" is not a way reason to dismiss the continent.
you have never worked in africa. its cheaper to build a data centre in low earth orbit than most of africa
1 physical security is a problem, and in some countries like equatorial guinea or south africa foreigners arent allowed to own assets outright
2 cheap labour cant actually do anything. they are nice people but they cant read instruction manuals. cant set up data centres
3 no infrastructure. why zambia and kenya etc are 99% cellphones, is because there is no grid and no landlines because people steal all the copper wires
stories engineers have told me about building things in africa:
- i was working on an oil rig and one day the local employees started playing hide and seek and trying to kill us until a ransom was paid. for 48 hours we hid in a ventilation area until the ransom was organised, then had to go straight back to work with the people who were trying to murder us with power tools the day before for a month
- the person who gave my company a contract was chainsawed to death on a beach
bad grid, bad fibre, #146 in the world in electricity production per capita. less power output than many US states, rule of law risk, civil unrest risk, and data sovereignty (gdpr), must get expat engineers (and get them visas)
large scale offshore wind in norway could generate 50-75% of the entire US production with 80% uptime and then DCs built in norway or EU area
> india is too politically risky. people will just steal your shit
India is a huge place and some parts of it are vastly better managed than others.
> latin america no infrastructure (highways, power grid, etc)
The governance problem is quite real in Latin America actually, but I think it may have potential. If some infrastructure gets funded in the process it would have beneficial side effects all around.
how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?
by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...
reply