0dayz

We are social animals not the god's replica, it means we got biases and one of the strongest is that we behave like a flock to ensure cohesion and shared responsibility to increase our survival.

So no people are influenced by everything, saying otherwise is preposterous, it's how we found out about PTSD which we didn't even believe at first to be psychological but physical hence the name shellshock.

The question is how much and what are the ultimate effects of the daily exposure to something.

Just because you can vote doesn't mean you have to vote on the first candidate or the other one, voting blank or voting arbitrary is genuine options.

So voting activation is to push all those people to not vote blank or arbitrarily.

Indeed Russia has had over 20 years of covert operations and generally different philosophy of how to influence a country to your will than the Americans.

Despite said tarrifs hitting those who import more than export to the US?

Sure, that doesn't change the question though, a lot of folks are only free speech for their cause or interest while cheers on when others speech is restricted, thus I'm curious if said poster is different.

Okay? That doesn't say much about what they do today nor if you are against this censorship.

Right, I assume the same advocates will also ban cuckolding since the entire kink is unhealthy relationship?

And I'm also not surprised that stuff like "CBT" isn't included.

Why exactly is it the saddest?

I imagine this could potentially have Europeans interested for digital sovereignty.

You're describing pretty much any bug nation that has enormous economic wealth.

I already addressed this, per-capita and total GDP growth can be approximately the same when population growth is small, but it doesn't change the fact that addressing you using two different series of GDP doesn't make it any less valid critic.

Plus I never claimed that using comparable figures would automatically reverse the result.

Since I already went along with your 10% vs 2% argument, especially since you keep replying as if my whole objection is merely those two figures being wrong.

That is because claiming that: "Reliable sources show Russia grew faster" is not the same claim as "reliable sources show sanctions hurt Europe more".

Because the first concern tells us what has happened, the second is about how much of what happened was caused by sanctions, compared with what would otherwise have happened.

You just haven't shown even a millimeter of what the second concern demands to be taken serious.

Good that you do seem to agree then that your original point about fighting-age men were false, in fact I double thank you for ensuring that this is now set in stone as a good solid fact.

Then there's the question about why you seem almost allergic to discussing Russia's recruitment and partial mobilization when we contrast this with your "basic facts" statements about Ukraine.

Why aren't you doing a deep dive into how many young folks are being sent to the frontlines on the Russia side, you've avoided every curious question I've asked of you about the same assertion you make about Ukraine to give me the same conclusion using the same analytical framework towards Russia, nothing more and nothing less.

So I'm not going to repeat myself there, beyond: How much additional force can Russia actually train, equip, supply and command, over what period and at what cost? How much recruitment is replacing losses rather than expanding the force and of course what of the partial mobilization?

I’m more than happy to explain any points you find incoherent, but challenging your reasoning isn’t the same as claiming you think what Russia has and is doing is fine.

Afterall you're the one who wrote "Russia would 100% do it again", even granting that you mean only the government, that is still an unhinged statement, as it disregards any actual concerns or issues the people have at stake.

And using that form of reasoning or logic and applying it another genocide going on such as the one in Gaza is merely showing your reasoning/logic's conclusion, not claiming your support for Russia.

So the previous attempts by Trump to let Putin get political influence was just jokes and blusters?

How exactly would diesel help republicans win when diesel is 1 of several critically important issues that is going against the republicans and Trump?

And I asked in past tense not in present, since you were talking in past tense.

Even so I'm sure India will be happy to eat Russian missiles for breakfast and call people on their drones since that is what exports powerhouse is compared to China.

...Why are you sending me a stat that is GDP per person for Europe while talking about total GDP growth for Russia?

Are you taking the piss?

Secondly so why didn't you just give us the same data done in the same way? Why was that something you didn't address when you posted it?

Even granting your 10% versus 2%, you still haven't established who lost more because of sanctions, considering that you've now acknowledged that the answer depends on what growth would have been without them, which is exactly the point.

But instead of estimating that, you've gone "that seems beyond improbable," therefore "the only conclusion".

Since when does your intuition eliminate every other explanation?

Since in reality if we are going to look into how an economy moves with our without sanctions, you need an estimate of what would have happened without sanctions, accounting for the war and the government spending alongside it.

Instead you've just decided what sounds plausible to you.

Since if there is one VERY common theme in war is that the Government ALWAYS become a top spender and enabler of said economy that is a war economy.

And that is the case with Russia's government which has massively increased spending, with war-related production driving much of the expansion, the Bank of Finland's October assessment explicitly describes rapidly expanding war-related sectors alongside weak growth in the broader economy[0].

So no a peaceful Russia would not enjoy 10% growth because GDP is not adjusted for what type of economy you are running.

Give me the oxford definition of War of attrition, I know you can at least do that much beyond copy-pasting manpower, because: a very kind little hint: attrition is not defined as manpower only.

Even so, why are you being so evasive about what Russia is doing? It's a very simple question, why is it hard for you to go into detail about what Russia does when it comes to: recruitment, handling of dissidents, what capacity Russia has in it's military, their budget and so on.

You've posted, and posted about Ukraine here and Ukraine there, yet always so tight lipped about Russia, why is that?

With that said:

Your jump from "Ukraine has serious manpower problems" to "Ukraine is using essentially its entire potential while Russia is barely trying" those aren't the same claim.

And even just scrutinizing your "ALL FIGHTING MEN" is wrong; Ukraine still allows those bellow 1-822 to travel outside the country and only those above or at 25 has to serve from what I can find, so why lie?

And Russia not announcing a general mobilization doesn't establish that it's using only a small fraction of its usable military capacity.

Looking at RUSI's September analysis it describes an ongoing recruitment system involving substantial financial incentives, regional recruitment pressure and reported coercion[1].

In particular it notes that the 2022 partial-mobilization decree was never formally rescinded, Russia is sustaining recruitment while managing its financial and political costs.

Even so why is Russia so interested in seeing their own men dying in this war that they are fighting with so many hands tied behinds it's back, while also bombing daily Ukrainian civilians and even establishing "human safari" against Ukrainians?

Either Russia is using it's "mighty" army or it isn't, you keep on tapdancing around it, if you're going to argue for "basic" "facts" can you stop arguing for "lazy vibes" as you are doing?

Given that, what fraction of Russia's usable capacity are you claiming is deployed, and how did you calculate it? How many additional troops can it train, equip, supply and command, over what period? How many are replacing losses rather than expanding the force?

And if this is what you call "basic facts" then I'm sorry to tell that you're using the definition where basic is used as a negative insult and not as the definition where it's used for foundation.

Either way you really need to re-read the story of Pandora's box if that is the take away, considering you cannot phantom that starting a war that was expected to go over fast has dragged out for 4 years now soon to be 5 is the definition of Pandora's box.

And what Russia? Do you view Russian people so low that they don't even exist as a ethnicity here? Or is the government of Russia the only thing that matters? Since that is what you're insinuating here.

And let's use your logic to the fullest: by your logic then what Israel is doing against Gaza is also fine? because they would "100% do it again".

[0]https://www.bofit.fi/en/forecasting/latest-forecast-for-russ...

[1]https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...

That is not a sanction.

And was Russia a manufacturing powerhouse? Genuinely curious who has more sway there? China or Russia against the west.

Right only that it was Russia that asked for sanctions to be lifted: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-says-russia-im...

And how exactly is that winning either way?

Russia exports diesel = winning everything?

I guess then if I win going up before my alarm clock I have won everything in life.

Again with these assertions and no actual substance.

"regularly mocked" this is news to me? By whom? Russia? Who threatens nuclear war every 5 seconds against any state it deems as a meanie?

Even then, how is mocking = effective? Are vibes how we determine economics?

Secondly: you already acknowledge that one graph is seasonally adjusted and the other isn't.

Which makes very little sense given the little context you give.

But even putting that aside, how do those graphs establish that sanctions hurt the West more than Russia? Russia's GDP went up, therefore sanctions didn't hurt it? What? Which self-respecting economist would ever make such a bizarre simplification of how an economy works? Since you know an economy can grow and still be worse off than it would've been without sanctions, those aren't mutually exclusive.

And yes Germany has been making some very questionable if not downright stupid decisions policy and economically speaking for about 15 years now one being aligning itself with Russia has of course caused huge economic problems for themselves, just look at Hungary and Serbia for similar examples.

Even so: Germany having a shit time doesn't magically tell you how much of that came from sanctions rather than energy dependence, the war itself or its own economic problems. Where have you actually separated those things instead of just pointing at a graph and going "see, sanctions"?

Plus why are you treating Germany as "the West"? Where's the comparison with Sweden, Poland or the rest of Europe? And I'm not asking whether their GDP went up or down.

I'm asking where you've demonstrated that the damage caused by sanctions was greater for them than for Russia, since that's your claim, isn't it?

And Russia is winning because no general mobilization? How? Since: "Hasn't done it" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't need to.", unless you think that not getting medicine for an illness means you don't need it.

Even so how are you ruling out the costs, logistical problems or political consequences of doing it?

Exactly where's the evidence that this means Russia has a load of usable military capacity sitting around rather than capacity that's expensive or difficult to put into the field?

What is "inch forward" here? How much territory, over what period, at what cost, and does it actually put Ukraine in a significantly worse military position?

And how is starting a war not opening Pandora's Box? Or you think it was smart by Nazi Germany to start WW1 and WW2?

How is it obvious when he wrote it in the opposite way?

What exports of tank components from Russia are detrimental to the west?

Since that is some of many things sanctioned?

How is Russia in a winning position?

You only give assertions without any actual explanation nor facts and is apparently obsessed with Ukraine's leader.

Everyone as in everyone in Russia considering they started the war?

And I'm curious which sanctions by Russia are crippling "the west"?

The guillotine is probably the only time I physically cringe as it gets romanticized due to people only remembering the 1st part:off with the king's head and not the countless innocent people beheaded equally due to one man's paranoia which was his own downfall and he too was guillotine'd.

If anything it should symbolize the cautionary tale of the how to have the power to exact punishment can and will come back to you.

I meant when it comes to ensuring you as a non paying user can circumvent said restriction as that restriction goes against foss license.

I think a small issue with foss and monetization is that you can accept money for said software hell even release it with expectations that you have to pay for it, but you can't insert a clause in the license that stipulates that the foss rights only applies to paying or paid customers.

Thus there is no legal protection you really got if you go foss as a developer when it comes to ensuring fair compensation.

Absolutely, and that is horrible.

By that logic how is an icbm not imperialism or airplanes that can fly across the world.

Out of all smoking guns you selected... A space program for defense against icbm as an example of imperialism?

What?

You can criticize said program for being reckless and that it sets a new standard for how to launch impossible to destroy icbms but imperialism?

But isn't hauls practically the same thing as container it just depends on how you want the cgroup to expose itself?

This comment makes little sense since north Korea didn't exist before the Korean war, and it's was only AFTER the war that the north enjoy some prosperity due mainly to the south not having as much investment as the north.

Maybe for Americans but certain countries the people there do on average care.

Oh yes, first thing that sprung to mind when I started to see games being made with Ai on itch and then steam and of course the posts showing up daily on certain subreddits.

Just wondering how does that fair over a vm or container that has similar limitations?

It does suck and it's awful that the burden is on small underfunded volunteers instead of a dedicated pay as you go system.

Sure if we also proclaim the opposite is to be parentless and as such statistically like to be homeless and constantly having others steal and exploit you because they got lucky.