strings are in base two, got it
strings are in base two, got it
Anglicisation of golpista, I assume
How does supporting this limit anyone’s ability to vote in November?
Pluto being too small isn’t actually the grounds on which it got demoted. The size requirement is just being massive enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium - that is, be heavy enough that it’s round. Pluto does meet this one
The one it fails is clearing its orbit. This basically means being much heavier than everything else in the same orbit. Be gravitationally in charge of your orbit. The other eight are all hundreds if not thousands of times heavier than everything else in their orbit (not including moons, since they’re gravitationally bound to the planet anyway), whereas Pluto is less than a tenth of the total mass in its own orbit. Ceres is actually more gravitationally dominant over its orbit than that, although still nowhere near the eight planets.
This one sounds a bit weird at first, but I kinda like how it has such a massive delineation between the things we instinctively think of as planets and everything else.
Never mind the depths I was already on edge when I met the fucking crashfish
I suspect that this might be a tactic intended for the domestic audience. The current government is extremely unlikely to be in power a week from now, and might be doing this just to force the next government to either follow through or retract it
For only 7.99 you can get enough store points to open three Crates of Eden, each of which has a chance to give you four seconds of total invisibility or two silent takedowns!
It’s actually in England, although funnily enough the part of England it’s in is called Cumbria, which has the same origin as the Welsh for Wales “Cymru”. So it’s sort of in Wales, just not the Wales that we call Wales in English.
Anyway it’s Old English torr, Middle Welsh penn, and Danish hoh. And like many British place names the pronunciation is not what you would expect at all at first glance. It’s “tra-pen-uh”
That is a very strange article. The headline is “How Boris Johnson Sabotaged Ukraine Russia Peace Deal In April” and the bulk of it is about how a former US National Security Council officer didn’t say that.
Frankly the NYT one seems a lot more convincing to me. That addition to the security guarantee clause is obviously completely unworkable.
Apologies, I was using “NATO troops” as a shorthand for the large number of countries involved rather than the specific command structure. You are right to bring that up
Maybe find an article that says that then. The one you linked says that yes, they were close to an agreement, but at the last minute Russia inserted a clause that was a dealbreaker
What that link actually says:
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker. Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
No, but obviously all you know how to do is to make ridiculous straw man arguments.
If ethnic cleansing didn’t happen before the war started, ethnic cleansing did not cause the war.
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
Saying “they’re doing ethnic cleansing” and backing it up with a link that’s just “they’re using cluster munitions” is literally exactly this
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
The point I was making was that the only person who described themselves in terms of identity in that link called himself Ukrainian. This makes it very poor evidence for Ukraine targeting ethnic Russians.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time. See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
What exactly do you think I’m trying to convince you of that I haven’t been open and honest about? I said exactly why I do not think that that source is worth my time based on the five other sources you put it with and how you used them.
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine
I know what the demographics are. I have watched Mearsheimer’s lecture, but it really is not necessary to get an overview of something as basic as where different ethnicities are concentrated in Ukraine. The fact that there are a bunch of ethnic Russians living in that part is not evidence of ethnic cleansing by Ukraine. Neither is Russia feeling threatened by eastern European countries joining the EU or NATO.
the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014.
So your position is that the ethnic cleansing happened in the ~two months between Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine in February and the declarations of the DPR and LPR in April?
Under this interpretation, the headline could then read “New Polling Shows Significant Ukrainian Support for War to End the War”
You said Russia was being diplomatic. Nobody is arguing that powerful countries are often cruel. So again, if this is Russia’s diplomacy towards Ukraine, do you agree that America was diplomatic towards Afghanistan?
yes, if I could do maths