I vouched your comment, it appears yours are dead by default. Being cut off from the financial system I'm interested in hearing your opinion on what that is like.
Unfortunately I'm afraid to venture too far into how/why I think it would work and being Virgil Griffith'd, and intentionally leaving it as a pure speculation on a hypothetical.
Crypto is cut-off from the international financial system but can be bridged by P2P. DPRK could allow, for example, exchanges without KYC that accept US customers. There is "sky high" demand for such a product (as in trillions). Russia used to have eBTC and it was one of the highest volumed exchanges.
My guess is that despite the DPRK appearing to be independent (nuclear et al), it really is not. NK envisaged starting not just an exchange but a whole "deregulated/free" city but China prevented them from doing that.
A random US Citizen cannot wire USD to NK. Their bank is not going to allow it. Their credit card company is not going to allow it. If you try to mail physical USD the USPS is going to confiscate it [1].
So, this leaves a US Citizen buying crypto on a KYC exchange and then transferring it to the NK exchange. Why? Just keep the crypto on the KYC exchange at this point.
You cannot "wire" USD to the UK either. The money always remain in the US system, it is just that individuals from the UK "control" it. What happens when you have a P2P market is that individuals from the US will provide the transfer services on behalf of the Korean. It is much easier to enforce this with big and a few financial institution than a P2P situation. Especially when the premium to execute the transaction is high.
> If I own a platform I’m not under any obligation to allow you to say whatever you like on that platform.
Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.
In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:
When Democrats were barred from interacting even with a very small part of a platform, it is a critical First Amendment violation. When conservatives, racists, sexists, or whatever term you want to use are barred, well, it's a private company bigot.
This hypocrisy must quickly end, or we as a country will end up in a violent conflict. There must be open, public debate on every major platform, and Americans must be entitled to express their opinions because the only other alternative is violence.
You're spot on (I say this as a lefty). Big social media like fb, instagram, twitter, et al are bigger and more important than any physical public square that ever existed. They are way way WAY past the point where they need to be treated as such and regulated as both a public forum for 1A purposes and as a utility like phone or mail for privacy protection and non-discrimination purposes.
Just don't pretend that trying to censor people on social media is somehow a trait of the Left (in fact, in a thread about the right doing precisely that!)
Extreme eyeroll on this post. Twitter's shareholders voted overwhelmingly to sell to Musk. 98.6% of them voted an affirmative yes, in which Dorsey was a very small minority. Dorsey could have voted no at ten times his stake in the company and still it would have been sold to Musk. Everyone was in agreement Musk was overpaying to an extreme degree.
> and its 11 million tons of annual CO2 emissions
Nobody is more in opposition to the current energy regime than Bitcoin miners. They are consistent lobbyists for deregulating private nuclear power, so that they can cleanly power their operations.
This reads like a petulant Communist's criticism of Dorsey. Much like many other of the author's diatribes.
You are essentially saying that the roughnecks that work the rig for $30-40 an hour should be owning it. They don't have the capital to own it and pay for the oil rights to use it, or the risk tolerance that it will sit idle and still have to be maintained, stored in a rented warehouse, and guarded when regulation does not allow them to be used. Nor is there any evidence they would be able to successfully run an oil company even if they were given it for free -- compliance issues surrounding commodities deals typically require a different skillset than the guy working the rig.
The vast majority of businesses are not software. Virtually all industry has capital outlay requirements and capital risks equal to or greater to this.
This has been debated for 100s of years and the era of funny money that is created at the stroke of a key i don't see how we can maintain the view that it should be so skewed towards capital.
Shifting away from using capital as the basis for resources allocation has been tried repeatedly and failed catastrophically every time. There's no mechanism than the market better to optimize the problems of supply, demand, and logistics.
However, something should definitely be done about funny money printers. There are plenty of mechanisms in history shown to be successful dealing with them, such as going to where they live and taking care of them in the dead of night. I agree that massive inflation is a serious problem, but the solution is not to say "let's get rid of the utility of money!" -- it is to punish the people subverting market utility for their own gain.
Trying to change reality because a small group of bad actors is absurd. Just get rid of the bad actors.
> I think that if some Rust allocation can cause a panic, this is simply _fundamentally_ not acceptable.
> Allocation failures in a driver or non-core code - and that is by definition all of any new Rust code - can never EVER validly cause panics.
Panics are not acceptable in countless contexts. Plenty of things need to be written to keep working through entire categories of errors. The casual attitude of Rust developers towards error handling is one of the many reasons people have trouble taking it seriously. Reliability and robustness is generally more important than language memory safety for almost all contexts.
There are indeed many cases where errors need to be recovered from and the subject of one angle in secure rust code training was quite literally "don't just panic, don't blindly unwrap or leave errors unhandled because that'll kill your thread/process on failure, you should still code for failure cases". If you do, you are coding denial of service bugs.
But, in the incident in question, the code is fundamentally not correct. Spatial memory safety violations, or in plain English "trying to call functions or use data that isn't at addresses your code or data lives at" fundamentally is an error. There's a missing part of the state machine to detect and stop before just exploding. In userspace this is a segfault and your process dies. In kernel, you get a bugcheck and the whole system reboots.
There are scary alternatives. The first, in kernel, is that you suppress all invalid writes and allow the errant code to keep writing, until it hits some other data. The system stays up, but you have out of control data writes so who knows what that's doing.
The second is that the execution flow of the process can be hijacked, i.e. Sergey Bratus' weird machines, or in plainer language, owning kernels in critical infrastructure. This is usually undesirable.
I've done Xenon a fair number of times, it is definitely the Rolls Royce of inhalants. I'd recommend it to anyone as long as you can divert a little and aren't paying for it yourself. If you don't have unlimited amounts of money, it simply is not worth it.
If you're looking for a great NMDA inhalant experience I'd recommend another classic 19th century anesthetic, diethyl ether. It is extremely simple to produce -- heat everclear and sulfuric acid together and distill. Adjust the PH afterwards. Anyone can make diethyl ether. The actual meat of the ether experience is actually on par with Xenon. I'd say the only element that makes it worse is the aftertaste.
It's still a tradition among Lemkos in the Carpathians (Slava Ukraini!) to drink ether. Drinking is a little trickier, as the boiling point of ether is lower than your body temperature. You should chew and swallow some crushed ice beforehand, and also serve a bit in a shotglass with some crushed ice and lemon shaved ice to offset the taste. I've also found pina colada mix to be a great accompaniment. If you're just starting out with ether I recommend just inhaling the vapor.
“The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. And I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. Probably at the next gas station.”
Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
This quote doesn't really describe ether at all. I'm not even particularly inclined to stand up while I'm doing ether, much less engage in depravity. I recommend for a more accurate account that you read what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about it.
Bandera was fighting against the Nazis by the end of the war. At any given time, he was doing what was prudent for his country and getting resources to fight the Cheka, because the Soviets were disappearing Ukrainians in the middle of the night and sending them to gulags.
Appreciating Ukrainian cultural traditions is not political. "Slava Ukraini" should not be a political or offensive phrase, unless you are a genocidal maniac supporting Putin's mass murder.
> a liberal attitude like yours.
Lemkos then and now generally had a pretty high opinion of Bandera (they were forcibly resettled by the Soviets). Doing ether is not a particular indicator of a liberal attitude -- it is a traditional practice in Lemko society, and it was so during the time Bandera was alive. Ether is fun and enjoyable, and I like it better than alcohol. I don't think it changes your political designation. It is maybe a Calvinist/Puritan attitude to see the consumption of ether or alcohol as associated with political liberalism, are you perchance of American Protestant stock? This attitude is extremely alien to me.
> "Slava Ukraini" should not be a political or offensive phrase, unless you are a genocidal maniac supporting Putin's mass murder.
Ask the poles what do they think of it. Are they all "genocidal maniacs supporting Putin's mass murder"?
Bandera and his OUN carried out massacres and ethnic cleansing of a hundred thousand Poles, plus we don't know how many Jews. It was the slogan of the OUN so yes it is a highly offensive phrase especially if you are Pole or Jew.
I couldn't care less if modern Ukraine adopted it as a national slogan. If Germany decided to adopt "Sieg Heil" as a national slogan, that would still make think of Hitler every time I hear it even though Germany is now a democracy.
> Lemkos then and now generally had a pretty high opinion of Bandera
Some Germans still have a pretty high opinion of Hitler, some Italians of Mussolini. That doesn't make up for their crimes.
> > a liberal attitude like yours.
You happily partake in Xenon, ether and what not, I generally call this behavior that of a junkie, liberal was my way of being polite.
The phrase "Slava Ukraini" predates the OUN by actual decades. There are plenty of people in Ukraine, particularly East Ukraine, that have personal objections to the mythos of Bandera as a national hero that still use the phrase, as it was coined in the Ukrainian War of Independence. Comparing it to "Sieg Heil" is utterly disingenuous. Regardless, your summary of Bandera and the OUN is delusionally ethnocentric and clearly biased against Ukraine.
> I generally call this behavior that of a junkie
and most people that voted in favor of prohibition would say that everyone that drinks alcohol must be a public drunkard, I guess. Usage of ether is a tradition on par with drinking in at least one part of the world. It is a little more dangerous, given ether's excessive flammability and low flash point, but inhaling some ether does not make anyone a junkie. America doesn't have a tradition of ether at all, and it is the only country where there are shambling masses of xylazine/fentanyl zombies defecating in the streets. Maybe you could all use a little more traditional ether consumption.
> The phrase "Slava Ukraini" predates the OUN by actual decades
> Comparing it to "Sieg Heil" is utterly disingenuous.
LOL I'll introduce you to the fact that Sieg Heil originated in Germany around the 1900, way before the nazis got the power. The roman salute was used by the Roman empire, the earliest known use of the swastika dates the 4th centure BCE. Yet none of this symbols/gestures are accepted today, because the nazis spoiled them for everyone.
> Regardless, your summary of Bandera and the OUN is selfish and ethnocentric.
Nice hand-wavy way to dismiss hundreds of thousands of murders.
Sieg Heil originated in Germany around the 1900, etc
A broken analogy. The difference lies in the fact that these symbols were utterly obscure to German public before the Nazis introduced them in the early 1920s; though they had previous incarnations, in essence the Nazis reinvented them. In fact, they were so successful at it that most people are surprised to learn that these symbols had prior origins.
The situation with "Slava Ukraini" is entirely different. It first appeared in a poem of Shevchenko in 1840, and gained widespread traction during the War of Independence. It was then co-opted by the OUN, but the point is, by that time it had its own "legs" as a slogan rooted in Ukrainian national consciousness, completely independent of Bandera and his program.
And used today, it has no fascist connotations, and does not indicate support for Bandera or the OUN. That's just a simple fact. You obviously want the slogan to mean something different in the current context -- but we're talking about a country of 44 million people here, and if you have any interaction at all with this society, it's perfectly obvious and clear what they mean by it. I take their word over yours.
The Poles have long gotten over all this history too, of course. They know what happened in those years, but they know that what's happening in the current day is infinitely more important. They know there's a fascist aggressor to the East which threatens their survival as a people, and it isn't Ukraine.
Your attempts to conflate the slogan with a meaning it simply doesn't have are disingenuous. You're clearly not interested in what's historically accurate, or what describes the feelings and intents of people who use slogans like "Slava Ukraini" today.
You're only interested in this stuff as scare imagery -- as a way to push people's buttons.
> And used today, it has no fascist connotations, and does not indicate support for Bandera or the OUN. That's just a simple fact. You obviously want the slogan to mean something different in the current context -- but we're talking about a country of 44 million people here, and if you have any interaction at all with this society, it's perfectly obvious and clear what they mean by it. I take their word over yours.
That's BS. Do some research, check how many marches like this one[0] (clearly mimicking nazis and glorifying Bandera) there are in Ukraine. Check the countless pictures and videos showing elements of the AFU wearing nazi symbology. Check what is the role of fascist militias like Azov and neo-nazi parties like Svoboda in the 2014's Maidan.
What evidence do you have to support that symbology taken straight from Bandera period has no relationship with him?
> The Poles have long gotten over all this history too, of course. They know what happened in those years, but they know that what's happening in the current day is infinitely more important. They know there's a fascist aggressor to the East which threatens their survival as a people, and it isn't Ukraine.
That's bullshit as well, and you know it. To this day Poland comdemns Ukraine's commeration of Bandera & co.[1] That's a constant source of friction between the two countries, which are only united at the moment because of Russia.
The real problem with Ukraine as a nation is that the only national cultural identity they could find is rooted in collaborationism with the nazis, ethnical extermination and hatred for the URSS. Not a great base to start from.
> You're only interested in this stuff as scare imagery -- as a way to push people's buttons.
All I'm interested in is to see an end to the constant glorification of nazism.
Check in on any American Nazi rally from the 1930s to the present day (the photos are all over the place); you'll see the Stars and Stripes displayed very prominently right along Swastika flags. Does that mean the former is, therefore, a fascist symbol?
Check what is the role of fascist militias like Azov in the 2014's Maidan.
Azov did not exist at the time of Maidan.
This is the kind of nonsense world you create for yourself by obsessively reading polemics, and pulling "research" from echo-chamber news sources. Rather than bothering to find out what Ukrainians are actually like, as a people.
The real problem with Ukraine as a nation is ...
The irony here is that you claim to be concerned about the dangers of Nazism. But then almost in the same breath, you dive head-first into weird tribalist diatribes like this.
Yes Azov was founded right after, which tells you already there is some correlation with the Maidan. But do you think Azov was founded by a bunch of newborns, or maybe by the same militarly trained people who participated in the Maidan?
> The irony here is that you claim to be concerned about the dangers of Nazism. But then almost in the same breath, you dive head-first into weird tribalist diatribes like this.
So since you have nothing to deny the fact that Ukraine's identity is deeply rooted in nazism and violence, you resort to defining what I say as "weird tribalist diatribes", which is nonsense.
The point is that with all of your concern about these momentous events, and all your "research" -- you're clearly hallucinating about the key players involved.
At any given time, he was doing what was prudent for his country
By which you must mean his issuing the Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State, which famously states:
3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.
Yes, absolutely, the Soviet Union and its Secret Police were an active threat to Ukrainians every day. Adolf Hitler was not.
Though Bandera did work with the Nazis, he later worked against them. They weren't ideologically into Nazism.
Even Karaite Jews in Ukraine joined SS regiments at some points. They didn't love Hitler, everyone knew Hitler was a stinker. They were just more immediately concerned with the immediate threat of forced starvation or torture in a gulag.
Yes. It was prudent to do anything to save Ukraine. Absolutely. If you love your country you'd deal with the devil himself to save it from what Russia was doing.
10 million people died in Genrikh Yagoda's torture chambers. Another 5 million starved to death in the holodomor.
Hitler was bad, sure, but only a third as bad as the Bolsheviks. And about half of those 15 million deaths happened in Ukraine, and Bandera's fiduciary duty was to fellow Ukrainians, not to some foreign nation. If you had to pick a side (and Bandera did) it was best to go with Hitler.
10 million people died in Genrikh Yagoda's torture chambers.
These are some wildly inflated numbers you're posting here. Total estimates for the number of persons killed in pre-war political repressions in the USSR top out at 1 million or so. I'm not sure what Ukraine's exact number is, but (in asserting that it was "about half" of 10M) you're easily inflating the true number by a factor of at least 10x here. Likely closer to 20x.
You cited, as an encyclopedic fact, 10M as having perished specifically "Yagoda's torture chambers" per your words, which can only refer to NKVD (or otherwise "political") persecutions -- not the various deportations en masse or the Holodomor. The WP page you cited confirms upper bound for the former set of excess fatalaties (i.e. the one that you were explicitly referencing) at 770k -- which we shall charitably round up to 1M for the sake of "civility" here -- for the entire USSR during the pre-war era.
Far short of the 10M figure you are introducing for whatever imaginitive and creative purposes.
Again: 10M in this category -- the number who perished "Yagoda's torture chambers" throughout the USSR before the start of the war; and "about half" being in Ukraine; or around 5M, is the number you put forth -- apparently for the nifty rhetorical effect you thought it might bring.
Whereas the historical consensus for this category is <400k.
> Far short of the 10M figure you are introducing for whatever imaginitive and creative purposes.
I didn't introduce the 10M figure, I linked an example article where it was used (the Ynetnews one) -- it is a common number I have seen of those who died in Soviet prisons. Maybe not specifically those who were captured by the NKVD -- but I think a lot of people were dropping dead who were also not political prisoners.
> 10M in this category -- the number who perished "Yagoda's torture chambers" throughout the USSR before the start of the war; and "about half" being in Ukraine;
No -- I said about half of these excess deaths were in Ukraine, most of that half being made up of the 5 million people killed in the Holodomor.
I'm sorry I don't have perfectly legible accounting of the millions of people Stalin killed in Ukraine, but with the lower bound being in the millions I don't think saying 7.5 million people killed in Ukraine is unreasonable. The Holodomor killed 5 million and then there's assuredly another 2.5 million made up in further excess deaths there somewhere. I don't know if it is perfectly accurate and I don't care. These were the people who Bandera had a fiduciary duty to protect, as a leader of Ukrainians. I don't support the evil things that happened in Volhyn and Galicia, but those things had a historical context where there was a credible threat of millions more lives of his countrymen on the line. Tough choices had to be made and he made them.
> I didn't introduce the 10M figure, I linked an example article where it was used (the Ynetnews one) -- it is a common number I have seen of those who died in Soviet prisons.
That's not how it works champ, we need sources. An article from a random "journalist" (Sever Plocker?? who is that? he has no history on the web, very suspicious) does not count as a source. Anyone can go to the web and write random numbers in a post, that doesn't make it true. Don't believe everything you read blindly, always look for a source first.
Okay. Let's pretend the Soviets killed nobody in Ukraine other than the Holodomor. That's 5 million people. The credible threat of millions more being butchered by the Soviets was real. At this point, we are disputing small fractions of the total deaths. I don't care if it was only 5 million, though it was millions more.
There is no Ukrainian/Soviet distinction. Ukrainians were Soviet at the time. Ukraine was historically part of the Russian empire and only split very briefly after the revolution. You are trying to promote the idea of a split between Russia and Ukraine that didn't certainly exist at the time.
Putting that aside, nobody "killed" 5 million people. Killed certainly isn't the correct term, as the Holodomor was about deaths by starving and not by shooting. We're talking about mismanagement, not murders. Otherwise we'd have to consider every death caused by government mismanagement as murder.
When a homeless dies for the cold do you consider him to have been killed by his country?
When someone dies because they couldn't afford insuline, is it a murder by the government?
When a worker dies in a factory accident, was he killed by an unequal economic system?
Between 17500 and 46500 homeless died in the USA in 2018 alone[0], was that mass murder by the government? No? Then the Holodomor wasn't a genocide.
By the way, get your numbers straight again, it's 3.9 millions[1], not 5.
Eugene Kapersky is a Russian state asset and literally refuses to use the word "war" in regards to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Banning foreign agents from a hostile regime in a time of war is not an attack on free speech. Kapersky is free to speak -- and he has, through public statements from his company. He is not free to do business with the Western world while living in a sanctioned country.
The number of times I've seen HN posters rejoice that people are not allowed to even communicate their political ideas because they are x-ist (it's a private company, bigot!) is too many to count. But the minute there's an actual genocidal war being waged by one of the most wicked nations on earth, people are very concerned about the Constitutional right to commercially sell antivirus software from the enemy's borders. Absurd.
>Eugene Kapersky is a Russian state asset and literally refuses to use the word "war" in regards to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
To be fair, western third parties like Japan refer to the conflict as the "Invasion of Ukraine" (ウクライナ侵攻, ukuraina shinkou) and such.
Personally, I don't view this as a war because there was no formal declaration(s) of war to be seen anywhere before nor after the fact. War is an act of diplomacy, but what Russia has been doing is anything but.
> War is an act of diplomacy, but what Russia has been doing is anything but.
No, this is an unnecessary formalism. Why not define war by what is actually happening (large scale armed conflict between states or other large groups) rather than by mere words uttered by somebody?
> In his study Hostilities without Declaration of War (1883), the British scholar John Frederick Maurice showed that between 1700 and 1870 war was declared in only 10 cases, while in another 107 cases war was waged without such declaration (these figures include only wars waged in Europe and between European states and the United States, not including colonial wars in Africa and Asia).
> The principle of a compulsory declaration of war has now fallen into disuse. In practice and under customary law, a declaration of war is no longer necessary for a state of war to exist; it suffices for one of the parties to make its intentions clear by actually commencing hostilities. Similarly, a formal declaration of war is not necessary for the application of international humanitarian law.
>> In practice and under customary law, a declaration of war is no longer necessary for a state of war to exist
Was it ever? Under customary law, a state of war exists between any two parties by default. What needs to be declared is peace, which is why so many ancient peace treaties survive.
Actually I am convinced that everyone in kremlin have the Diplomacy skill set to ZERO, all of them and their ambassadors, local leaders, duma politicians.
And the regular citizens that I interacted with are similar, for example a guy threaten me " my cousin fought in such and such Ruzzian war, he is not with the mafia and drawn a guy because X, do you want to have my cousin kill you? "
No sane goverment should run Ruzziancontrol software, even if the guy is a saint(we know is a KGB close friend ) the KGB goons will force him to install spuyweare in an update.
"Invasion" is also an acceptable and accurate term. The doublespeak of "special operation" as if it is a police issue in a territory they have right to is what he sticks to.
Regardless, Kapersky has plenty of money. If he doesn't support his nation's mass butchering of its neighbors he could easily buy citizenship in a country like Nevis, which puts it up for sale, denounce Putin, and abandon the Russian state. As it is, he is under the control of the FSB, and every dollar he earns generates demand for the ruble and tax revenue for the Russian state.
An invasion of a sovereign country is a act of war by definition. It's a legal casus belli for the victim to possibly be followed by a official declaration of war but that does not invalidate the war status.
A conflict without formal DoWs issued is not a proper war, FSVO proper. That doesn't detract from the hideous nonsense Russia is engaging in, of course; it's arguably worse than a war because they couldn't even be arsed to say it is one.
As much as diplomacy tends to be derided (and I'm certainly among those detractors), I also want to believe diplomacy still fucking means something for the sake of a civilized world.
> As much as diplomacy tends to be derided (and I'm certainly among those detractors), I also want to believe diplomacy still fucking means something for the sake of a civilized world.
I don't understand what benefit for diplomacy is this insistence that a war without a declaration isn't a war.
Aren’t wars (in the traditional sense) effectively banned by the UN? If war is illegal under modern intentions law what’s the point of declaring one besides self-incrimination? If you invade a country and just call that a “special operation” you can at least maintain some pretense of legitimacy.
What is happening currently in Syria? The USA hast still some forces there taking control of oil fields in a sovereign country. Can we count that as war?
Yes of course, and I'm not defending it, but it's still totally different in both scale and nature from what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
At least on surface appearances the US isn't taking control of the oil and selling it on the market (the oil is owned and marketed by the autonomous Kurdish government which runs the region).
And unlike Russia, the US certainly isn't seeking to permanent annex the region.
> but it's still totally different in both scale and nature from what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
Because if Americans kill people, it is an act of justice, of spreading democracy (see also Irak, Afganistan, Yemen, various Latin American and African countries) not a killing. /s
A conflict without formal DoWs issued is not a proper war,
If it helps clarify things for you: most wars are deeply psychological in nature; and part of how they operate is by telling people (both the perpetrators and victims) that it's not really a "war". But rather a "special operation". They will even lie right to your face, and tell you that they are there to "demilitarize" the area and to bring peace. And that to the extent that it might look like a war -- that will insist that they had no choice; it was forced on them; the other side could stop it at any time if they wanted to.
Proper declarations do have significance of course; but they are always secondary to the basic facts of what's happening on the ground.
In case it wasn't obvious, no I don't buy Russia's "mUh SpEcIaL oPeRaTiOn!" bullshit. It's not a war either, for already stated reasons.
No, what's going on in Ukraine is even worse; it's unadulterated, uncivilized baboonery that should be an embarassment to all of humanity. Russia for doing it, and the rest of us all for failing to stop it (and so far putting an end to it).
It's the 21st motherfucking century and we can't even try to be civilized about brutally murdering each other en masse. Fucking hell, man.
But I see the overall point you're making, and I've also taken the "Can we even call it a war?" perspective at times, not because of the lack of a proper declaration (which I see as insignificant), but from the sheer pointless, murderous insanity of it all.
A side note: It just so happens that the romanized version of the Russian acronym for SMO is SVO (that is, SVO = СВО and perhaps F meant "full"?) so I was temporarily confused by what you meant with that acronym. I now do see what you meant by it. But at the moment my mind was focused on the pointless insanity that we both agree is the situation in Ukraine, not math.
True of most armies -- even the worst we can think of. The architects of war know this, of course. That's why most the killing is usually done at a distance, out of sight and out of mind.
Which was done (and, judging by the choice of ordinance, signed off on at the highest levels) not despite the fact that they knew there were children present at the carefully selected target; but because of it.
This is absolutely awesome. For ages I have needed an alternative to mosh that did not require UDP -- I run every outbound connection over Tor, so I only have TCP transport available. This is an incredible improvement to my quality of life.
Given that accidents involving BGP within the past several years have led to worldwide outages in the world's most used websites this is just not true. Also thousands of known bad announcements occur every year, which are usually used in a very small window to send large volumes of abusive advertisements.
There's no reason not to force the industry to hold people accountable for false announcements. The privilege of announcement should be acquired by posting a significant amount of capital as a bond, from which damages can be removed when a system makes a false announcement. The vast majority of damages are a result of network operators on the subcontinent -- it is high time we figure out how to make them take the issue seriously, and pay out the nose until they do.
