5 ms·
Just realised that the point I've made in response to a comment probably should be a level higher: Don't trust the radiation monitoring system, the actual moni
by jtsuken 5y ago
Just realised that the point I've made in response to a comment probably should be a level higher:
Don't trust the radiation monitoring system, the actual monitoring system has been destroyed by a rocket impact three days ago.
The monitoring system has been shot down on 1 Sep.
Here is the statement from the Nuclear Agency in Ukraine:
On March 1, 2022 at 11:40 as a result of rocket impact, the communication network of Zaporizhzhya NPP was damaged. As a result, the Automated Radiation Monitoring System (ARMS) of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant lost its full functionality and stopped the transmission of data to the international radiation monitoring network IRMIS. IAEA has been informed about the incident.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Державна-інспекція-ядерного-регулювання-України/100064837892613/ https://www.facebook.com/people/Державна-інспекція-ядерного-...
- Nextgrid 5y agoThe link doesn't load right now (HN overload?) but I wonder, if the comms are down, shouldn't the system report "no data" as opposed to "all clear"? Why should there be an explicit warning about not trusting it when the system itself should easily be able to tell whether it's getting fresh data?
- ethbr0 5y agoMaybe they forked AWS' status page.
- Aeolun 5y agoDamn, maybe one of the sides should consider fixing that before they proceed with shooting at each other.
- ruined 5y agoshooting is one of those things that you just gotta do first. hard to deprioritize
- eyelidlessness 5y agoI can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.
- wyager 5y ago> One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. This statement, while true, changes denotation depending on the scale at which you view this conflict. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the existential threat is to Ukraine. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and NATO, the existential threat is to Russia.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoWhut
- gusgus01 5y agoDid I miss something today? Did NATO deploy troops into Russia or Ukraine?
- dpratt 5y agoIf you want to achieve victory, you must understand your enemy as well as yourself. The Russian attitude towards NATO expansion into Ukraine can be roughly viewed from an American perspective as well equivalent as the old Warsaw Pact attempting to bring Mexico into their treaty. Or, at least, this is part of the explanation used to frame it as an ‘existential threat’ for Russia. This, combined with a somewhat precarious economy based largely on fossil fuel exports and the fact that in some sense Putin serves at the pleasure of the group of oligarchs, and only as long as they can earn. This combo of circumstance makes it pretty easy to guess at how we got here, and frankly how easy it was to provoke. Unfortunately for Putin, and fortunate for pretty much everybody else, at this point, it appears that outside of complete and total victory and annexation of Ukraine, it looks like he loses no matter what. Putin is a ham-fisted dictator, and the world will be better off without him, but his motivations here aren’t mysterious.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- baskethead 5y agoNot great, not terrible.
- mzs 5y agothis particular post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=324151759756085&id=100064837892613 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3241517597...