Deme

Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(

… becoming even more detached from reality? There really is no good solution, is there? Well, apart from the one.

And that fresh new video generator by Google is scary good

The lander most probably made it down in one piece. It was designed to survive an atmospheric entry on Venus and from interplanetary speeds. It almost certainly survived a reentry into Earth from a low orbit. That being said, it probably shattered in the splashdown due to the parachute not deploying.

The war is bound to happen at the latest when the Himalayan mountain glaciers melt away and a sufficiently bad drought hits the region. We’ll see if they have the patience to wait that long though…

So was the video linked at the end. I knew I would regret clicking the link and I still did it. Morbid curiosity is a bitch.

Trump is probably too old to survive a proper sauna. I hope he goes into one.

For the sake of clarity I will say that I was referring to the hegemonic position the US has within NATO. This is the result of them simply being a trusted ally with the largest military on the planet. The latter isn’t about to change soon and the former would require very little effor, but the Trump adminstration seems to be doing it’s best to demolish the trust between the US and its allies. (Soft power protip #1: Don’t threaten your allies with invasion!)

No I do not believe that. I was talking about NATO troops in Russia, which could in theory also happen through a coup and a new government more alligned with the west. Even then I find it hard to believe that there would be “NATO troops on the Amur” as you put it.

Greenland and Canada aren’t about countering a Russian military threat. Both are NATO members with US bases in them. The Russian threat to the US was much larger during the cold war and yet the US didn’t annex them back then. This is about force projection in the arctic. Control of both the NW passage and the Panama canal would increase US leverage on the world stage, including on their so-called allies. Local resources are most likely of interst as well. Even then, I suspect that a large portion is just rhetoric to stoke up visions of grandeur and might among his supporters, since that would track pretty closely with how fascist regiemes have operated in the past.

I admit that “current de facto US ally #1” might be a bit strongly put, but it’s not like the bar would be too high at this point. They do get along well enough. Putin isn’t dumb enough to antagonize the US president who is more useful than any of his predesecors in a long time.

A NATO occupation of Russia, be that through overt means or a friendly coup, would still be incredibly expensive and thus politically unpopular across the board. Also Trump is all about pretending to be the peacemaker when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, so this would never go forward barring a major restructuring of NATO where the US is booted out or at least knocked down a peg from their current hegemonic position. Both seem unlikely to say the least.

The way I see it, China is just trying to position itself as a force for reason and making the most out of recent US shortcomings in soft power projection by exercising its own to fill that vacum.

Why would they wish to stabilize the current de facto US ally #1?

Capitalism has a tendency to eat everything it can. This includes the political system. The US is just ahead of the curve in this.

The Trump regieme officially endorses Palestinian transwomen, as long as they have abundant facial hair.

I think they should have a duel and the loser has to resign

Carbon capture is needed in the long term, so it’s good that technologies for it are already being developed. Ending emissions isn’t enough, we need to also remove the GHG’s that are already up in the air. But that comes later. The most pressing thing currently is to remove emissions, or to stop shitting on the floor, as Adam put it.

Even then, I am sceptical about the scalability of DAC solutions. Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) seems more scalable, like building huge platforms for seaweeds to grow on, and then sinking them and their stored carbon into the depths of the ocean.

Obligatory Adam Something video on these things.

It would be more effective to just move location agnostic, power consuming stuff like data centres to Iceland to run on the green energy instead of sucking up power from grids with fossil fuels in them.

A good video by Adam Something on the subject.

A paragraph from the article that I considered particularly relevant:

"The biggest difficulty is evidentiary, explains Gas. Using evidence to link a specific crime to a specific defendant when dealing with dozens of crime scenes, where hundreds of suspects were caught and thousands of offenses were committed, is almost impossible. “The usual laws of evidence are not suitable for this event. There are no organized chains of evidence, there is no one who filmed the videos you want to present in court.”

It’s not only about what happened, but also about exactly who committed what crime. But yes, the paragraphs posted here are quite damning.

Yeah they’re public info, ironically exactly to prevent “accidents” like this.

The ingress displays perfectly how pathetic Orpo is. “Yeah uhh racism is like, bad and stuff, but I can’t make them angry or my government with a lot of racists in it would collapse and that would be bad for the stockholders!”