Zoraptor

OMG hitmen would be an odd complaint anyway, since that's basically been Mossad's MO for most of their assassinations. Better than trying to blow up the captain of the Vincennes with a car bomb (and almost getting his wife instead) anyway.

lol. I note you elided the explanation, I gave OK, and... The whole cascade of events has been triggered by Russia --> Ukraine basing at schools is one of those events --> Ukraine basing at schools has been triggered by Russia --> since Russia triggered it they're to blame*. Seems a pretty logical progression, no? And really, what's the point of bringing it up if the purpose isn't to say "doesn't matter, it's really Russia's fault anyway"? That sort of construction is used all the time to justify things- from playground fights on up. Per above, you have. If "Russia triggered the whole cascade of events" then Russia triggered any Ukrainian war crimes- as they're included in the whole cascade of events. You're clearly not doing it deliberately though. For the vast majority of people such thinking is also not in any real way deliberated. That would be the case for the vast majority of journalists, I very much doubt they deliberately sit down and think "how can we lie about the situation?" They've just far more likely to give good interpretations to the actions of those they like; hence situations like the huge difference in interpretation between Hamas using schools vs Ukraine using schools. *the real salient point is, under international law they aren't. The blame is solely on Ukraine- for this at least. Defender gets plenty of extra 'rights', Aggressor has plenty of extra obligations; but this isn't a case where either applies. It's not subject to provocation/ they started it as a defence and the obligations are the same for both. The 'correct' defence is military necessity, and that is very hard to argue when you're using Protected facilities well behind the front lines. The only real question about it is whether there's no practical alternative to using schools as barracks, and there clearly are.

Good RTS mechanics, yes. Awful save system though.

Currently running Creative in the WWF.

I mean, it was literally a few posts ago you were agreeing with the 2nd one and naming it a 'salient point', quoted below. 1st I'm absolutely sure you would have seen too. Take the videos of Ukrainians shooting Russian PoWs (or Georgians beheading them) after the "it's fake!" defence you usually get "So what if Ukraine shoots PoWs, the Russians do it to and they have more PoWs to shoot!". Indeed, demanding an iteration of Russian war crimes in a report about Ukrainian ones is itself an example, and that too happened within the last day or so here. The purpose is clearly to mitigate anything Ukraine does by pointing out that Russia is worse, and that's not how it works* "well they started it, therefore everything is their fault so we cannot commit war crimes" is not very far off that at all. It's just rather more towards the "doesn't matter if Ukraine commits war crimes, it's still Russia's fault" end of the spectrum. *if we want to brutally honest how it actually works is that you get a load of talk about the bad guys doing war crimes and a load of excuses for the good guys doing them right the way up the chain to the ICoJ (and its predecessors) itself. See the Operation Storm verdict which legalised ethnic cleansing as perhaps the relevant example.

Eh, it's a figurative list, not a literal one. Talk to any journalist(s) as a collective group though and you'll get talk about honesty, getting the truth out for/ informing people, being balanced etc. You won't get much about clickbait, sensationalism and agenda driving though and that's the majority of journalism nowadays. There are plenty of professions that do, more or less, live up to their claims. Drifting rather off topic, but you can always do an english language search for most/ least trusted professions- in which journalists reliably are only beaten by politicians as least trustworthy; in contrast those involved in science and medicine are typically most trusted. Plenty of journalists do work with integrity, plenty don't- and plenty think they do but are simply not very good at ignoring their own biases. It actually isn't, at least so far as the question of war crimes goes. It isn't either a zero sum game where "well, they killed 1000 people unjustifiably, we only killed 100, therefore they are guilty of killing 900 and we are innocent!" works; nor can you go "well they started it, therefore everything is their fault so we cannot commit war crimes"- though both are frequently tried. Consider the 2003 Iraq war- is the US responsible for everything stemming from that? Maybe in theory- but not practically in terms of war crimes. The people responsible for those are the people committing them, not the US because it invaded.

No, there's a blanket ban on using protected civilian infrastructure for military purposes without an exigent threat, ie the military benefit/ necessity must outweigh any danger to civilians. The question is what constitutes an exigent threat, hence why all the criticism of AI states that Ukraine are using 'front line' facilities- that inherently makes the threat exigent, and the use justified. I simply pointed out that their interpretation of 'front line' varies massively depending on whether they like the entity basing at schools or not, which makes them partial rather than impartial. (Using schools is also a form of Perfidy prohibited under GC1/37 "the feigning of civilian non combatant status". You can pretty much guarantee Ukraine didn't tell Russia about the change of status, and they and reporters have complained numerous times about schools in Bakhmut being targeted while knowing they were using schools in the city as military facilities. Doesn't actually matter if that specific school was used or not, Perfidy is a warcrime specifically because it degrades legitimate protections for protected entities like schools or hospitals, or protected individuals like PoWs or medical personnel) Per below it was specifically stated that not all Ukrainian civilians were removed from the Bakhmut school environs that was being used by their army. Lol. He was most definitely one of those complaining. I'd have a lot less against journalists if they actually lived up to their self proclaimed list of virtues, but they don't.

Ukraine has plenty of suitable missiles. A decent number of the 'HiMARS' attacks are actually from tochka instead. And the Russians have been using anti ship missiles as makeshift ground attack for months. Well, if you insist. Let's apply the logic of Tom Mutch and friends per the school they visited to other situations, eh? Bakhmut, in May, ~20km away from the front line, but a 'front line' town that justifies using civilian infrastructure for military purposes, despite even the journalists admitting that there were still civilians present. Right, so the definition of front line is 20km away... the width of the Gaza Strip is 6km. Will Tom and friends justify Hamas using schools etc when the furthest distance they can literally, physically, be is about 10km from the Israeli border (and if you count the sea ~5km)? Will they say that they're not disproportionately endangering civilian lives because those civilians have nowhere to go? No, of course not, because they aren't impartial and they'd be terrified of getting an AI like backlash and being called anti semitic. Describing Bakhmut as a front line town now, sure. He was saying that in May though. There's military necessity to occupy civilian infrastructure on the front line because if you don't the enemy will, there isn't when they're 20km away, unless they've invented teleportation in which case you've got bigger problems. Would you like a list of all the schools hit in Bakhmut that were presented as being indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, by western journalists, starting in May? Because there are a lot, and they're all presented as indiscriminate attacks, by said journalists, many of whom like Tom presumably knew outright that Ukraine was using schools as bases- but somehow failed to mention that relevant fact. You'd think that if they were actually impartial they might have though... They also betray a pretty crappy understanding of humanitarian law, ie it applies to those you like, not just those you don't. Ultimately the reason why you shouldn't use protected civilian infrastructure for basing and why it is a warcrime unless it's of military necessity is because it erodes the protection for every school, including those that are still used as schools. That's why both Hamas and Ukraine using schools as bases is bad, and a war crime, and despite Hamas' bases being a lot closer than the one at Bakhmut. You aren't going to see that mentioned by most journalists though, because they base their understanding of things like the Geneva Conventions and warcrimes on what they feel they should say, not what they actually do. I mean in theory that's what they do. Exactly the same as, in theory, politicians serve the people who elect them- if you listen to the politicians. In reality though... "But it is good that you think reporters are reliable to tell what is happening and are trained to document and retell things and it is their job to seek full picture and report happenings with details, that is attitude you should keep when you read reports from AI's reporters" Not very good at the zingers, are you?

'(Let's Get) Physical' is the first song I can actively remember being #1 in the charts here. The video certainly can be interpreted a little differently when you're older than 5.

TLDR -19% (-$1.4bn in absolute terms) on projected revenue for Q2. Wonder if they'll cop another fine for lumping crypto losses in with 'gaming' again?

Very bad form editing a post someone has already replied to. If you're adding new information it should be in a new post. Reporters are not primary sources unless they're also eyewitnesses. The hint is in the name: Reporters. You go to primary sources if you can, that's just... basics- that's like eschewing eyewitnesses to get the good oil from wikipedia. Still, typical of reporters to pack a sad when someone thinks they aren't important. Er lol. Why do these objections never surface when they say something the west likes? Let's be frank too, if they gave lots of detail the objection would be "anecdotal" "too long winded" "too much detail" and nitpicking everything. Let's be honest here, if it was "did Russian forces do anything to mitigate risks" in their report it would all about how how AI was trying to minimise things. You're still wrong though anyway, as it specifically says they were distributed among civilians, the correct way to mitigate risks is to... not be among them. And yeah, for the obvious objection, they do specifically say away from the front lines, as using civilian infrastructure and being among civilians at the front line is (generally) not a war crime. They cannot give too much detail anyway, as Ukrainian citizens are subject to the military censor and it's illegal to either 'slander' or to give information on the Ukrainian military. Anything that identifies who they talked too has to be restricted. Which is also, of course, why Ukrainian AI staff were not used for this (but are used for Russian war crimes) Depends what they said. I also haven't praised it for accuracy and excellence, I just pointed out that your criticisms were laughable. Similar to when you were claiming that the EU never made their association agreement us or them and it wasn't a step towards EU accession- I made no value judgement on the approach itself Cool, so I guess now in every report on Russian war crimes you'll insist on a balancing paragraph about the Ukrainians using civilian infrastructure for military purposes, shooting PoWs etc? No? Because if you don't, you're a hypocrite. If you're going to complain about retconning of articles you'll be doing nothing else, all day. It's funny when AI did ask Ukraine for comment, and got nothing.

The civilians may or may not be impartial, but they were direct witnesses. Reporters generally aren't, and have cheerfully ignored witnesses and edited their reports specifically to remove references to - or pictures of- Ukrainian military dead to make it look like targets were purely civilian before on more than one occasion.

That's... good. Reporters aren't experts on war crimes, and they most definitely aren't impartial. They did ask Ukrainian PR for comment though, they just didn't get a response. "Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." [source] And yeah, there's some detail there. I mean, are we going to argue that that isn't part of international humanitarian law? Because that really is trivial to prove. "Many of the Russian strikes that Amnesty International documented in recent months were carried out with inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions, or with other explosive weapons with wide area effects. Others used guided weapons with varying levels of accuracy; in some cases, the weapons were precise enough to target specific objects. The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes." Yeah, sure does say that only Ukraine has recently committed war crimes. Dunno, something around here is poorly written and researched, less than convinced it's the AI report though. Maybe don't get your summaries off Finnish Fox News.

Really? I would have said the reaction was absolutely predictable. You get pretty much exactly the same thing whenever HRW/ AI criticises Israel, just in exact reverse. Which is of course itself pretty funny, especially when it's the same person/ organisation taking the mutually contradictory positions.

Russia definitely had least to lose and in some ways are far more insulated- energy independent, most people own their own property, lots of raw resources people absolutely need; plus a population that (mostly) isn't used to or expecting a 'luxurious' existence anyway. Probably more of a politics thread thing, but the employment figures are pretty decoupled from economics this time around. We have record low unemployment* here spurred on by not being able to import slaves cheap foreign labour slaves during covid. We also have 30% of people who bought a house in the past year or so with negative equity and worse to come. That's an awful situation to be in when 10% of your population (not workforce) is employed building tatty mcmansions to exploit a housing bubble. Proper inflation is a lot worse for poorer people too, and not just via Vimes Boot Index. If you've got the money maybe you delay updating your car to the 2023 model or find you can live without the latest iPhone model... *not actually, New Zealand had full employment up to the 70s but for some reason that doesn't count

One does not joke about Temuera Morrison's physique, certainly not using culturally inappropriate references to popular media. It's an imprisonable offence with a 6 month minimum sentence here. One does it using culturally appropriate references to homegrown media, like "Too much KFC; not not enough gym work" (instead of "Too much weights; not enough speedwork". Actually one of the tamer scenes in Once Were Warriors, but there's a naughty word and a beatdown so no hotlink)

Japan said some missiles flew over Taiwan, don't think Taiwan has said it though. So far as I've seen they just said that missiles landed to their SW and NE, assuming shortest route that would not be over Taiwan proper. The wording from Japan also seemed a bit weaselly (ie was it over Formosa Is./ Taiwan proper, or over some minor islet, held by Taiwan? There's a pretty significant difference in terms of escalation). I doubt we'll get an invasion of Taiwan anytime soon since China is risk averse*. A bit of face loss for Xi which most of his people won't hear about ultimately doesn't matter. OTOH he does probably want reunification as his ultimate legacy, and control of all that lovely tech manufacturing. But the one thing that can threaten him is an internal revolt, and that risk goes up a lot with economic turmoil and that would inevitably follow any military reunification. Still, pretty stupid move from Pelosi in terms of external politics and pretty much the definition of virtue signalling. Made no practical difference but just made people feel good about themselves for a bit. And all when they want China's support (or at least to avoid their antagonism) when it comes to Russia trying to break bits off another country. *but not immune from ill considered decisions- see them trying to get support from India, having spent much of the past few years provoking them (with predictable and actually quite painful economic backlash) and while financing infrastructure in Pakistani Kashmir. Right or wrong on Kashmir, India sees that much the same way as China sees the US financing Taiwan, ie provocative, at best.

99% of the time Headline: in country's territorial waters --> Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nmi; not Territorial Waters of 12nmi Headline: in country's airspace --> in their self declared Air Defence Identification Zone, air traffic control area or similar, of arbitrary size; not within actual Airspace of 12nmi Helps keep the blood pressure nice and low.

Kind of surprised it wasn't the Flash movie getting the chop since it's very late- not quite Gilliam Don Quixote level, but still- and Ezra Miller has had some, uh, issues recently. Would be ironic if his only (?) appearance as a standalone Flash ended up being in the TV show.

September 15 seems to be the favoured date for release on the rumour mill.

Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead before he became SecDef under Bush. No idea whether Gilead supplied the drugs for the Bush program though. Ultimately, that's probably a better use for aid than most of them even if some of it went to ~cronyism. Having babies born with HIV because mothers weren't given a prophylactic dose was utterly moronic. I'd be loathe to criticise it even if Rumsfeld got his pockets stuffed with cash.

Seems like it wasn't allowed to be broadcast after all.

Oh yeah, I'm certainly not disagreeing with that. I'd far rather see any media attention on the 'racism' aspect being used to illustrate deadlier diseases than monkeypox though, as it really is pretty small fry (and as previous, does have a mostly effective vaccine available too).

Why would you want an easy explanation in lore when you can make a complicated scientific one*? I believe the 'official' (not sure how official) explanation for Watto and the Geonosians is that they're full of hydrogen and thus a lot lighter than they appear. *one of the funnier things about Star Wars and science is that you get almost no information on how things work, they just do; and the one time you do get information it's hated by most fans, ie midichlorian counts. Dunno whether he would have got more or less criticism if he'd just called them mitochondria instead of pseudo portmanteauing them with chloroplasts.

Sigh. I bet they didn't take Bernouilli/ fluid dynamics into account. Obviously Geonosis has increased atmospheric pressure and density, so it's more like falling through water than air and the descent is significantly slowed. Indeed, this is clearly the case if one observes carefully- consider, Geonosians can fly on Geonosis when they would never be able to on earth and Padmé clearly hits the [whatever Anakin is riding] at relatively low velocity. There simply is no other explanation. Well, besides George Lucas not caring about physics, which is clearly ridiculous given the respect he gives to scientific consistency otherwise like making sure there's no sound in a vacuum and that lasers are light constant and cannot be seen unless they're hitting something. At least one other planet also clearly has very high atmospheric density in Star Wars, and it's far better known than Geonosis- Tatooine. We see Watto flying there with his diddly wee wings, so it must be an absolute pea souper in terms of density.