jopsen

49 ms·

661.
by jopsen 5y ago
I don't think it's lower CO2 emissions that saves lives. It's likely reduced air pollution. Gas power plants probably have similar properties. (Not that I would advocate for gas) In any case, most the problems around nuclear
662.
by jopsen 5y ago
You're mixing a lot of things. Creative jobs, whether journalism, acting, writing, music, etc. have always been a difficult business. Creator economy is no different than the poor musicians 30 years ago. The fall of unions and rise of
663.
by jopsen 5y ago
> After some stagnation, the Linux desktop is gaining momentum again. Yeah, I feel the same way. I guess it's time for gnome 4 :)
664.
by jopsen 5y ago
You just saying that most students don't go to an icy league school, right? :)
665.
by jopsen 5y ago
I'll agree it's hard not to have mixed feelings about it. On the flip side, every charged with a mini-USB or USB-C for a reason. And internally, most electronics use standard battery sizes anyways, AA or AAAs.. I'm not a subj
666.
by jopsen 5y ago
The best argument for induction cooking is how easy cleaning it. The fact that they don't pollute your home as much, and that installation is cheaper are just extra cherries on top. If you spill something, on an induction stove you jus
667.
by jopsen 5y ago
Just wondering, is motion really a good idea? It distracts, eats cpu/drains battery, can't be printed, has bad UX. User have to wait for the animation to cycle, and you can't pause it to read something if it's moving too
668.
by jopsen 5y ago
Absolutely, that's tragedy of it. Sanctions won't make them surrender, or make them our friends. It'll just make the poor. The only good thing sanctions against North Korea did was: 1. Make their army poorly maintained, 2. Di
669.
by jopsen 5y ago
> But the West is too afraid to fight. If only... If only we would just cave, maybe everything would be fine (I don't know). At least it's not clear that fighting will solve anything.
670.
by jopsen 5y ago
My point is that things are pretty bad in North Korea (they used to have famines not long ago). Yet, that didn't make us ease sanctions significantly. Did it? My point being: things can probably get very bad in Russia before we ease sa
671.
by jopsen 5y ago
> Russia cannot be trusted because it lied that they will not start a war and then it did. Yeah, it's kind of hard for Ukraine to negotiate to avoid an invasion when Russia kept saying they wouldn't invade. I know an ultimatum
672.
by jopsen 5y ago
Or maybe the point is to make Russia poor... Or maybe just do something, because doing nothing is the alternative.
673.
by jopsen 5y ago
> at what point do we decide to continue to serve Russians because the citizenry are still people. Hmm, lets ask the North Koreans! Sanctions don't make a better world, but it's better than bombs. We can also try another "
674.
by jopsen 5y ago
Yeah, the peace offer sounds worth considering. But can you trust Russia to withdraw? Side note: is it still WWIII, if we're just talking about Russia vs. NATO + friends? Who will side with Russia?
675.
by jopsen 5y ago
It's an interesting hypothesis. But many things could happen..
676.
by jopsen 5y ago
Yeah, it's tempting to sell a few cruise missiles with "free delivery" to "alliviate" Russian traffic jams. But if we get involved, we probably can't just blow up stuff and walk away -- I think that only works
677.
by jopsen 5y ago
Not wanting to use expensive fighter jets. They might think of causalities in terms of money, and not lives.
678.
by jopsen 5y ago
> I have to think that the EU is eyeing Ukrainian NG in order to cut Russia out of it's economy. That sounds like something that would take decades.. And a few decades from now the EU plans to be carbon neutral.
679.
by jopsen 5y ago
> What happens next? Anything could happen.
680.
by jopsen 5y ago
As recent as a month ago, they made a deal on gas settled in euro. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-... Doesn't that say something about them not trusting each others currency? Woul
681.
by jopsen 5y ago
Ah, sorry yes!
682.
by jopsen 5y ago
> That might have had more to do with the threat of nuclear war It's not clear we would have risked nuclear war by selling discounted cruise missiles to Ukraine. But the Ukrainians might have used them prematurely, or surrendered wi
683.
by jopsen 5y ago
> I think part of why Russia looks so inept is because everyone is comparing against the US. Yeah, we would all like the narrative to be Russian army not working. But it's also possible that they are just working slowly. And certain
684.
by jopsen 5y ago
Murdered a lot of defenseless people is more like it..
685.
by jopsen 5y ago
> Why precisely they thought they'd meet no serious opposition... Isn't that what everybody thought? Didn't NATO also think that? Isn't that why the US and friends categorically refused boots on the ground, no-fly-zon
686.
by jopsen 5y ago
I guess planes are expensive. Maybe, it's cheaper to use conscripts and leftover tanks from the soviet era.
687.
by jopsen 5y ago
Isn't it only senior intelligence officers and the likes that they care to assassinate?
688.
by jopsen 5y ago
> they get much further with that budget. Not when you pay for corruption :)
689.
by jopsen 5y ago
> There were plenty of reasons they would have hoped to be able to do this all on a modest budget. Indeed NATO certainly expected Ukrainians to just surrender. Which is probably why they didn't get a no-fly-zone, strategic ambiguity
690.
by jopsen 5y ago
But when China trades with Russia, they often trade in Euro or Dollar.. Would you trust the yen? Or the ruble?

More ›