_kbh_

61 ms·

691.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> 3. Samsung is also the reason why we have "nm" numbers that dont at least correlate to something. ( 99.9999% of the Internet blame TSMC for it ) And those numbers you see on roadmap means nothing. I thought the reason for thi
692.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> 2) the US said Russia is not really allowed to use nukes, because they're too big or something, but these particular newfangled Himars bombs the US is giving to Ukraine can devastate 'huge' areas (i lost 'huge'
693.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Sounds like a great argument for all countries that can to acquire nukes.
694.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable. This is a persistent myth that is not reality, the soviet
695.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. I think this is a classic "you dont know what genocide actually means" argument. > Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an
696.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
Having a military base is not the same as annexing a country, if this is the best that Russian propaganda can do they are really scraping the barrel now. I mean, would you really compare Russias genocide, rape and torture of the Ukrainians
697.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> They did, they just smarter than Russia Care to explain this?.
698.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Russia formally annexed ~15% of Ukraine today. How is that winning? Russia has lost more territory in three weeks then they have gained in something like 3-4 months. Russias position is so poor they aren’t even declaring borders for th
699.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
But there was never going to be a NATO base in Ukraine, cause Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO for decades.
700.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
They have lost more land in the last three weeks then they have gained in a some ungodly large amount of time (three months? more?). They look like they are going to lose Kherson in mere weeks at this point. Additionally older and older equ
701.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten. If you want to show the gains the Russian conscripts have made I’d be happy to look at the evidence. But it ap
702.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
Just as a side note to your post anyone who uses the annexation of the territories as a increase to the nuclear threat. Ukraine has been hitting territory that Russia either claims to own (Crimea) or actually owns (Belgorod) since the start
703.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Of the top of my head (not my primary space), a gadget is a piece of code at a known or guessable location that provides specific functionality. > Consequently, modern exploits tend to look like: (1) figure out how memory is laid ou
704.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Russias mobilisation has already started, mobilised soldiers have already made it to t
705.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. The only progress here is that you keep responding without any real answers. What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exac
706.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Yes, expensive such that they will determine the cost is greater than the expected benefit. Every semi-rational agent responds to incentives, even Putin. Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes,
707.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. Then what is your policy? Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. But Russia has already annexed territory in U
708.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> This does not represent engaging intelligently with my argument. Is it your plan or not?. > Let's cut the crap. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? No
709.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> In a comment upthread I have specified exactly how we should respond to avoid escalating to a nuclear war while also deterring future aggressive actions. Feel free to engage intelligently with those points. > This is just nonsensica
710.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Escalating the proxy war to the point where Russia's only options are to nuke or retreat is a total failure of protecting regional security. So your trying to tell me, letting Ukraine force Russia out of its territories and showin
711.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Firstly I'd suggest you stop using big words you don't fully understand if you want to have a meaningful discourse. I’d suggest you look up the definition of genocide, because it’s not what you think it is. Thankfully the UN
712.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
What’s your solution? Letting whoever has nukes rape, torture and genocide their way through whatever country they want?.
713.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
The current sanctions and weapons have nothing to do with nukes, the west can go much harder on both if they wanted. If you thinking Russia using a nuke wouldn’t cause there country to collapse internally due to the response your kidding yo
714.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> Specifically what, lol? How can an "devastating and overwhelming response" on a nuclear state be anything near "the best and most stabilising thing"? NATO is more then capable of collapsing the entirety of Russia wi
715.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
Furthermore they can barely equip the current conscripts so unless they are going to use T34s I doubt we will see millions mobilised.
716.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> London, New York and Paris have multiple ballistic missiles aimed at them from different sites (that we even know about). Are you so confident that every single missile could be intercepted? Is Ukraine worth the risk? If the world lets
717.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
But it really isn’t anymore of a justification then Russia has had for months to use nukes in Ukraine. Since the start of the war, Ukraine has hit. - Belgorod (Russian land) multiple times with both missiles and helicopters - Crimea (Russia
718.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
> CBS is America, not Russian? The history of Ukrainian political corruption predates the war from Russia. CBS is American but this idea that the majority of weapons aren’t being in Ukraine cause they are being sold or stolen or lost _is
719.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
I’m motivated to refute Russian propaganda. Something you seem motivated to spread. The quote was the only part that talked any solid numbers about aid to Ukraine, so how can you even make and analysis. You also never mentioned the quote is
720.
by _kbh_ 4y ago
This story was retracted by CBS because it turned out to be hugely misleading and is no where near the truth about the situation today. Trying to pass it off as such is at best misleading and at worst actively malicious. But even going down

More ›