HN user
The only reason why EU stopped buying it [...]
I should have said natural gas, not gasoline.
You need to sleep a bit more: "Spain Boosts Russia LNG Imports 84% While EU Urges Less Reliance"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-14/spain-boo...
It's not intended. In current situation more money go to middleman compared to ru
Let's pretend those middlemen are Martians.
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/trafigura-stake-nay...
This means that Russia can't sell at full price because even those not enforcing the cap aren't willing to pay full price for it (why should they, when Russia's choices of customers are severely limited?)
Yeah, as if energy sources are fashion material and are being bought out of pure fun and leisure. Because countries can just allow themselves not to rely on energy.
Nope it’s ad hominem
Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?
you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.
But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?
Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with Crimea and Donbass in 2014 -- is equivalent to saying that Russia as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the terrorists in Baghdad/Kabul -- is equivalent to saying that Iraq/Afghanistan as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
In other words, the person registered "77 days ago" loses their entire awareness of role reversal in an attempt to fit reality into their botched worldview. It would be nice to hear, at least, what Ukraine did do to prosecute the so called fringe group that was threatening foreign relations of the entire state, but that would be too much for you to answer. Especially in the light of knowing that UNA-UNSO got integrated into the governing body of the country [1]. Let me guess: "they are still the minority". Great coping nonetheless.
So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery?
The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.
You're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_anti-NATO_protests_in_Feo...
2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".
So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour
I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...
Yeah, I've already heard that you don't believe in succesion of power in Ukraine and that it enables everyone in the government to act at a whim of the moment as long as it serves the current agenda. Turns out that strategy doesn't work in real life.
In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.
Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.
Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...
Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?
Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.
The question is lacking historical context of the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 to be worthy of specificity you’re willing to hear. Welcome to the real world of messy politics that cost human lives, unless guided by level-headed leaders (that the modern Ukraine has been lacking since early 2000s)
Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join? Next, what was sovereignty of Ukraine predicated on in 1990?
Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?
The Budapest Memorandum was predicated on adherence to all prior agreements Ukraine would never see sovereignty without in the first place [1]. Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990: >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990) <<
and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began
Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
Let's see, in 1994 Ukraine supports military uprisal in Chechnya and aids separatists and their terrorist field commanders arriving from Saudi Arabia and Middle East [1] in a war against Russia on the territory of Russia. Namely, UNA-UNSO (a nationalist “patriotic” [2] organization in Ukraine [3]) leaders Anatoli Lupinos and Dimitro Korchinski led Ukrainian delegations to Grozny to meet with Chechen leaders. Fast forward in 1995, the UNSO fighters organized as the “Viking Brigade” under the command of Oleksandr Muzychko (a man who vowed to fight "communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in his veins" [4]), are illegally crossing the Russian border in Chechnya and join Mujahideen terrorists in their fight against Russian regulary army.
Twenty years after, when the chickens of the foreign policy had come home to roost in Donbass of 2014, someone nicknamed "golergka" thinks that everything that contradicts his worldview must be a "completely crazy propaganda".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_in_Chechnya
[2] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=una+unso&form=HDRSC3&fi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_National_Assembly_%E...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-te...
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text
> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
The US did preemptively invade Panama in the past, at the first sign of General Noriega's shift toward the Soviet bloc, after his soliciting and receiving military aid from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Libya.
There are no government subsidies and bailouts in a free market, what you see in the US today is exactly the opposite of it: crony mixed economy with overreaching government control.
Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.
He didn't say parts of it, he said much of their military.
But the ground forces has been completely destroyed
You've mentioned 35.5k-43.5k KIA losses for Russia up to March this year. Are you suggesting that these numbers comprise the complete ground forces?
I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.
I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all. If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time? Is it the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?
Which is 100% true, they haven't lost a single submarine in this entire conflict.
You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.
The American intelligence leaks the other week put the losses as.
What period of time are these numbers for?
Im not sure what your point is, is it that Russias military is so corrupted and rotting that they have to use T62's without even having significant losses?.
The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11955729/Leaked-Pen...
This 3 day war has already lasted over a year, and with losses so high by Russia that they are fielding T62's against Ukraine.
"Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict" [1]
What are the Ukrainian losses by the way? Is it above 300k already, as claimed by one of the presidential candidates? [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B02ASaskWTQ&t=2047s
[2] https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/16563139627394007...
following the terms of the German-Soviet treaty that facilitated the start of ww ii.
Correction: you were meant to say British-French-Polish-German treaty of 30th September 1938, that provided "legal" grounds for the German, Polish, and Hungarian annexation of pieces of land of Czechoslovakia, preceded by the United Kingdom and France "informally" asking Czechoslovakia to cede its Sudetenland territory to Germany on 20th September, which was followed by Polish territorial demands brought on 21 September and Hungarian on 22th September.
This guy did see it: https://youtu.be/B02ASaskWTQ?t=2047
The US has Confederacy parades, and also has criminal sentences for being an unregisteres agent of a foreign power.
No wonder the US did everything to save the nazi collaborator responsible for the massacre of ~100k Poles in Eastern Galicia from a post-war tribunal justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lebed#Post-war_activiti...
I’ve just been fortunate enough to work in situations where people were there for the mission and there for the people.
How is "being there for the mission and for the people" better than "being there for money and for tech stack"? The latter also has to do with people and missions, only the missions and the people are important and related to the candidate directly, and not through company owners' or hiring managers' goals (most likely motivated by prospects of monetary rewards too).
In a strict language, you can say (roughly at least) that replacing [] with [1..n] will add at minimum a certain number of extra CPU cycles and a certain amount of additional allocation.
It's not at minimum, it's always the worst case cost of N in strict languages, whereas the lazy setting provides you with amortized complexity.
Where Haskell is worse:
Infix operators are bad. Custom infix operators are worse.
Disagree, as a regular user of `shouldBe` and other HSpec expectations, as well as DSL libraries that rhyme like English. And even when they don't rhyme, they provide flow for defining your complex types that would be tiresome to define with verbose prefixes (Servant).
Haskell is very indentation-sensitive, more so than Python. Slight, harmless-looking cosmetic changes can break the parser.
That's not true, Python is more sensitive to indentations.
Lazy evaluation is bad.
Lazy data structures are bad.
Is purity worth it? Not really.
These are just lazy crowd-opinions.
Every file starts with declaring thirty language extensions.
This has never been true, all extensions can be declared default global to a compilation group (library/executable/project) and never mentioned in .hs files. When you see extensions being specified in every file of online tutorials, you know it's being done so for 1) didactic purposes 2) self-contained units for copy-pasting into your editor.
All in all, the author isn't very well versed in Haskell, as it becomes clear with the provided examples of Ord instances for newtype IntAsc declarations. A seasoned Haskell programmer would almost certainly write it with `deriving via`, especially in a situation where they want to demonstrate how easy it is to get around the limitation of a single typeclass instance per type.