Zoraptor

Wouldn't be NATO which has done the equivalent in this case- it would be the US (Tabqa Dam, Syria). I'm not sure whether it makes it better or worse that it was on a 'do not target' list but still hit.

It's not even like all the pressures are external. Europe's economic system relies pretty much completely on a constantly expanding population* to service its constantly expanding old age population. Europe also has a lower than replacement birth rate. So you have an increasingly old, ill and non employed population with less taxpayers not just relatively but absolutely to pay for them. You can try and fix that by cutting the benefits to old people (good luck, since they vote unlike the young) or by bringing in more young people to pay taxes, or by increasing tax burden on the remaining taxpayers, or by constantly increasing debt. Practically, and in most places, it's a combination of all those options. If you're bringing people in they're not all going to be doctors and web designers, you need garbage men and sewer cleaners as well. *only one type of person believes in constant expansion in a finite system: idiots, economists and politicians.

Excellent news about Russia no longer having the ability to threaten NATO. The alliance can now be disbanded, since it's a purely defensive one and lacks a credible enemy! Certainly military spending can be greatly curtailed? Oh, it's still needed to defend against that well known North Atlantic superpower Klendathu*, uh, China? *kind of funny they're following the playbook of a movie as unsubtle as Starship Troopers, but then it's mostly unsubtle because it's always been obvious how easy it is to whip people up into a frenzy about 'bugs', 'orcs', '****', 'nips' etc. And it's not like you got much complaint at prior "they aggressively put their country near our military bases" types arguments. [heh, I guess at least the disparaging and racist term for Vietnamese is censored, feel free to replace it with some more modern epithet like towel head or hajji anyway]

Yeltsin semi permanently killed any chance of a 'western' 'liberal' leader in Russia since he had the west's unrestricted backing- including a truly massive intervention in the 1996 election in which Yeltsin outspent campaign rules by up to 1000 times (not +1000%, a thousand times) via western money- yet was an unmitigated disaster for Russia. Western support is kiss of death territory for the average Russian, the only people it counts for positively are middle class++ urbanites who actually did OK under Yeltsin. Even the human rights situation wasn't actually better, more opposition politicians and journalists died suspiciously or violently under Yeltsin than under Putin (to 2014 when I last checked the figures, but then that was 14 years of Putin vs 8 years of Yeltsin, so...). There's a single pro west candidate with more than 5% support, just by some polls, and as previous that's Navalny who is picked for that support mostly for being anti Putin rather than for his outstanding qualities and beliefs. The other most popular and supported leaders in Russia were Zhirinovsky- who made Putin look like Ghandi- and Zyuganov (Caligula was most definitely the victim of a concerted smear campaign by the Sun Journalist equivalent of the time, Suetonius, who is nearly our sole source on the subject. "Sheesh, my horse could do a better job as consul than you senators" <--> "Look what that LOONY TUNE Gaius has done NOW! He's going to make his HORSE Incatatus Consul! Do we need further evidence his BONKERS quotient is through the ROOF*?". Suetonius, of course, while not a member of the senatorial class was a member of the equestrian one, just below it. *Who am I kidding, the average Sun reader's head would explode at the word 'quotient') Yeah historically, September is the month prices start ramping up for winter, not start dropping. They'd be worried about windfall taxes though most likely, not intervention per se. If prices get capped the EU will almost certainly have to pay the difference as is the case with the announced £150bn scheme in the UK. The alternative may be not getting the gas at all. A windfall tax scheme is a great way to claim back a lot of those costs though, and would be politically highly popular.

I only had one problem with the Steeltown DLC, and that was its start. Which was pretty generic and 'boring' at a time when I wanted something different. Once you get into the facility and down the elevator it picks up a lot and is different, so of course I quit my first run through just before going down there... I was also a bit tired of 'haha silly corporates!' type stuff after The Outer Worlds. I prefer the 2nd DLC a bit overall, but they're both good and provide what good DLC should provide and what the old 'expansion' term implies- a broader experience. Animal Whisperer + non party counting companions were interestingly balanced, to say the least. I think my main character with the highest HP only had ~500 and the worst of the others had about 1500. Even the Brahmin you could pick up early had something like 2000HP when attached to someone with high AW and the perks from it.

Once again the question of where the most appropriate place to post rears its perpetual head... Even Her Majesty the Queen was a fan, apparently. Then again, personally I'd rather watch Wheel of Time Episode 8 on loop for two hours than listen to Paul McCartney.

... "Behind Russian actions, all you can see is completely destroyed towns and villages", yes? So, if the Russians captured Vysokopilla then it was already "completely destroyed, yes? Did the Ukrainians fire shells that rebuilt the town? Or was it not "completely destroyed"? That's why it's not really worth replying to, the whole rationale makes no sense. (Vysokopila and Popasna aren't a great comparison anyway, Popasna is 7 times larger if nothing else. And the topography of Popasna is significantly different too. Most damage is done by artillery, which Russia has a lot of, and Ukraine doesn't) That's because you haven't been paying attention. If I say that NATO or anyone else has done something wrong, and I think it's the same thing / directly relevant to what Russia is doing then --> --> Russia has also done something wrong. Yes? Pointing out that others have done the same without consequence is not the same as saying it's all good, is it? There isn't some finite pool of guilt that is in danger of being used up. I've used this example a lot, but I liken the application of International Law to a policeman. If a policeman only goes after criminals that have no power, or that a group of powerful politicians- who have done similar things- don't like then is he a good policeman, or a bad one? Sure Bruce, I unequivocally condemn the various war crimes and human rights abuses committed by the Russian military in Ukraine. In an odd twist of fate I also condemn all the various war crimes and human rights abuses committed by anyone else outside (or inside, for that matter) of Ukraine. Which, sadly, is not true of everyone.

You didn't get a reply because the point is, I'm afraid, asinine. Let's say that Russia blows up everything in its advance. OK. So how do you tell if Ukraine is doing the same? You can't, it's already all shot up. You can't say 'Behind Russian actions, all you can see is completely destroyed towns and villages with thousands upon thousands killed civilians' then say 'look at all the perfect towns Ukraine has liberated [from Russia, "where all you can see is completely destroyed towns and villages" after they were taken]'. It's logically inconsistent and not really worth bothering with. Current evidence to the contrary not withstanding (The main difference seems to be that Ukraine is defending built up areas while Russia withdraws from them. Withdrawal will inevitably result in less destruction, because the fighting is a lot less prolonged) No. It's just pointing out uncomfortable facts that are directly relevant. Pointing out NATO has done the exact same thing isn't whataboutism. It's directly relevant to whether that thing is a warcrime. I can understand you not liking that sort of argument though Bruce, give your propensity to defend human rights violations, so long as they're from someone you like. You are, after all, the number one defender of a journalist getting dismembered while still alive on this forum. Now see, that's whataboutism for you since it's not relevant. "we're only talking about [subject], you can't use directly relevant things that don't directly involve [subject]" is perhaps the most pathetic argument ever and a complete admission that you don't have an actual counter argument. It's just plain embarrassing.

No it doesn't. To be facetious; how many wars can you think of that were legally Declared post WW2? Surely not none? So... the Geneva Conventions have not applied to anything since 1945? Guess International Law really is useless. Not being facetious; the wording was deliberately changed to 'armed conflict' in 1949. Both Ukraine and Russia are parties so the rules apply as if it were a declared war.

Yes, the casualty thing definitely needs a correction, five people died in the Kiev attack. It was most certainly labelled as a war crime though, as it was said to be deliberate targeting of civilians (which would be a war crime by definition; killing civilians in an attack on a legitimate target isn't though). Otherwise you really need to look up what 'whataboutism is'. It certainly isn't- but is often used as- a carte blanche defence against people pointing out hypocrisy. eg: But what about the US genociding its native population or Britain starving millions of Indians? --> whataboutism. Has no relevance to the situation, only introduced to, basically, troll. Pointing out that NATO bombed electrical infrastructure as well is completely relevant to the question of whether doing so it's 'terrorism' or illegitimate though. Otherwise it's just "my football team never commits fouls or goes offside. Those dirty opposition lives players live offside, hack our ankles and dive like Greg Louganis though". You might be happy with that approach to International Law, I'm not. Not really, there's nothing to do with taking examples from any prior conflict except to illustrate that civilian infrastructure with a military purpose is a legitimate target- for everyone. Sure, could use the US killing 2 million North Vietnamese as an example, but it's also from 30 years prior to Yugoslavia. Always use the most relevant and recent example.

It doesn't. (It's mainly used as a 'kill two birds example'. Not a legally sanctioned war, therefore if the 'no legitimate targets in illegitimate war' claim applied- which it doesn't per Internaional Law- it would apply there as well. And I happened to know that NATO had extensively targeted a load of Yugoslav civilian infrastructure, especially so when frustration levels rose so high with their lack of progress on the ground- and had some fairly, uh, interesting justifications given for it too, like 'accidentally' speeding up footage by a factor of 4 to justify blowing up a civilian train. So it also applies to the question of whether civilian infrastructure is legitimate. I could have used Iraq 2003 as well, but a war that NATO was formally involved in rather than a few of its members seemed more relevant)

Same as with everything; if our side does it it's a legit target, if the other side does it it's not. Russia attacking an unmanned TV tower --> warcrime. NATO bombing Yugoslav media centre, killing 16, not. Indeed, the first line 2nd paragraph from wikipedia on that bombing could probably stand to be quoted "The bombing was part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked." I may have added some mild emphasis to get the point accross. And in terms of the tired and much debunked 'no legitimate targets as not legitimate war argument': I seem to have forgotten the resolution number that allowed NATO to attack Yugoslavia legally. Perhaps someone can supply it for me?

Wasteland 3's world is certainly very cartoony, for want of a better word, both in terms of most of the environment looking like it was made from plastic and from most of the characters being archetypes. It's not the sort of game I'd recommend pushing through any initial doubts about to find the awesome kernel revealed later on; if you don't particularly like the beginning it's very unlikely the game will suddenly click with you.

Wasteland 3? Loading times etc were fine. Generally ten to fifteen seconds maybe? Not too many area transitions either in general. Engine was a bit clunky at times, but then Unity games often are. Stability was perfect. I have a good (for ~two years ago) 1TB NVMe drive for comparison purposes. Dishonoured 2? A lot longer load times, but then a lot more complicated levels; and it had a couple of perpetual load loops too. Only required a process kill though, no hard lock up. Performance otherwise was fine (on a Vega64 though, and it's an AMD sponsored game. I think since I nuked the start up videos).

Finished Wasteland 3. Overall I enjoyed it a lot. Oddly enough my enjoyment was almost the direct reverse of Wasteland 2 where I enjoyed the middle of the game considerably more than the ends, ie I liked the ends of WL3 and the middle dragged*. That's probably an issue with the combat, which of course there is a lot of. If you have a lot of it it either needs to be challenging and varied enough to keep interest, or quick enough that you can storm through it with maximal pew pew and minimal plink plink. Towards the end of WL2 there was an awful lot of plink plink. Kind of funny though at the end the few times I triggered combats where the enemy got initiative I'd lose pretty much the whole party instantly, and the exact reverse if I got initiative. *mostly an issue with the Steeltown DLC really, first time through I just stalled out there completely. Also finished Dishonoured 2 recently It is, of course, a very good stealth game and if so inclined, an OK action game. Though from my brief experience playing it as an action game, very easy when played that way so long as didn't think you were John Rambo.

I quite like the idea of Akallabeth details being put in spoiler quotes, if only because it's older than I am. It's a bit muddy. Embracer's press release on them acquiring the rights from Saul Zaentz recently (first paragraph, emphasis added: "Embracer Group AB (”Embracer”), through its wholly owned subsidiary Freemode, has entered into an agreement to acquire Middle-earth Enterprises, a division of The Saul Zaentz Company, which owns a vast intellectual property catalogue and worldwide rights to motion pictures, video games, board games, merchandising, theme parks and stage productions relating to the iconic fantasy literary works The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien, as well as matching rights in other Middle-earth-related literary works authorized by the Tolkien Estate and HarperCollins, which have yet to be explored." That kind of implies they've got something off of the Tolkien Estate as well? Guess they could just be referring to Akallabeth, though in literary terms I believe it's book IV of the Silmarillion rather than a separate work and must have been licensed some time ago given the RoP series uses it extensively.

The old where does this post best fit conundrum... Racist Flag in Wanaka actually Klingon Insignia. Most amazing thing is that they managed to get the Police to turn up to look at the flag.

Now now, Bruce has never advocated for nor defended using whips on miners on these boards. 9x19 and 5.56x45 though...

Plus MbS isn't the Saudi King, he's the Saudi Crown Prince. Bruce gonna Bruce, I guess. (The Saudi King can't really be outraged at anything any more, as he has advanced dementia)

There are already other costs than just those of arms though. The British energy subsidy scheme Truss announced today has costs 'up to £150bn', which is a cool 6% of the UK's GDP and +6% onto debt to GDP- and that's assuming there's no recession and the denominator doesn't reduce. That's... around £2300 cost, per person. Even if kept to the more conservative (heh) estimate of £100bn that was made last week it's still ~1500 quid per person. Of course some of that isn't related to events in Ukraine and would have happened anyway, and it's being put on the metaphorical credit card so the bill won't come due any time soon and can be easily ignored (at least, up to a point); but it's also due to far- far- higher price appreciation than the UK's already high 10% general inflation rate, and does have to be repaid sometime.

IIRC all of Taika's direct creative involvement with WWDitS was early in its run (?all Season 1?), so if you liked it early that was when his influence was strongest. Though any drop/ change in quality is more likely to be be due to Jemaine Clement leaving as he was always a lot more involved. Hunt for the Wilderpeople is great, though I always wonder a bit how it reads without a certain amount of specific cultural knowledge, eg from a time when pixels were in a global shortage... (One of a series; same ute is used in the film, and the driver in the ad (Barry Crump) wrote the "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" short story the movie is based off of)

If you're going to go narrowly for 'promotional videos' then fine, they didn't go as far as Gazprom. Then again, the promotional video is more or less proportional to the threat accompanying it compared to an individual companys' effect on Russia; ie can you name a sanctioning western company as significant to Russia as Gazprom is to Europe, or even close? Rhetorical, no need to actually answer. With all due respect to, say, McDonalds if they'd done a promotional video on their withdrawal they'd have been laughed at because ultimately they sell burgers and fries. Gazprom is somewhat more important than that. Plenty of companies did use withdrawing from Russia Promotionally though, just not with a video, I don't think that can be disputed. A fair few were posted here as well. As above I'll concede they didn't go as far as Gazprom in publicising it (but, see point 1 below) I'd dispute the harsh words around a negotiating table bit, though it's peripheral. European conduct has been pretty close to if not outright unprecedented on the matter, and end of the day the seller has a right not to sell if the buyers' demands are unreasonable. The two relevant points otherwise are: (1) this is not actually a commercial decision by Gazprom, neither the video nor the threat/ actions. It's a political decision by its majority shareholder, the Russian government, to act on/ publicise its leverage. And while it may not be a commercial action it is an economic one, the video is designed as an attack on Confidence in exactly the same way the succession of Euro politicos and analysts predicting the imminent implosion of Russia's economy was which followed western companies leaving. As said previously, one of the reasons the 'science' of economics fails so often is that perception largely shapes reality (until it doesn't) which is why everyone puts a lot of effort into trying to make it look like the other side is about to implode financially whether or not they believe it. That's why we had "Russia will be bankrupt in 6 months" both in 2022 and far more laughably, in 2014; not because it was a 'serious' prediction but because one of the things that might actually lead to bankruptcy is a Confidence crisis. Similarly, if you want energy bills to reach €6000+ a household in the EU one of the best ways to do it is to say that it will happen and show how*. (2) leaving Russia was not really a choice for western companies in most cases either, despite being private institutions. The Sanctions regime was a political decision, and in many cases would make doing business literally impossible. *and conversely, as per Mamoulian War's post above, one of the best ways to try and avert a crisis is to insist there isn't actually a (big) problem at all and everything is well in hand, so you don't get market panic driving prices up. You find out who was right- or whose PR worked?- only after it's happened.

Really? Companies do this sort of thing all the time, even ones that aren't state owned. Try asking DPRK/ Iran/ Venezuela or, well, Russia about whether western companies do this sort of stuff normally. The US Instructed its chip makers not to sell AI chips to China just last week for example. Or in other words: Russian sanctions on Europe --> no coming back from this. Prior European sanctions on Russia (or anyone else --> ??Easy way back, just do what we say?? This retaliation is, effectively, Sanctions it's just (probably, though as below not according to the Euros themselves) going to be more effective than all the Euro sanctions have been. But the counter for that is that the estimate for Britain was +80% household energy costs over winter before this- with a cost of £100bn to the taxpayer- and Britain doesn't even use Russian gas at all. It's also not in a vacuum, there's a requirement to be both a good seller and a good buyer. Talking about weaning yourself off may not be bad buyer behaviour, but the EU has most definitely been talking about price caps and the like for the seller, try doing that for your energy provider and see where it gets you. There's also, of course, the currency fiasco of insisting- at least theoretically, though it's been widely ignored- on payments in Euros, which Russia can't spend because of... EU sanctions. And the thing is, if you go by what the Euros are saying it shouldn't even be effective. Just about everyone has been announcing that they'll be off Russian gas by at most the end of the year. So, not much for Gazprom to lose, really. You do tend to hope that that weaning off didn't rely on buying lots of gas now for storage though. Probably the most interesting thing will be to see if we end up with the richer EU nations filching supplies off the poorer ones. Germany needs natural gas not just for energy, but for a load of industrial processes as well, and shutting them down would mean potentially millions furloughed for months.

The fundamental problem is that people tend to view economics as a 'science' but the vast majority of economists aren't actually scientists. Zerohedge does tend to go a smidge, maybe a tad far in the opposite direction into contrarianism* to mainstream opinion for the sake of it, but mainstream economists really do tend to be pretty awful when it comes to predictions. The more general issue is twofold, firstly that that a lot of predictions are made only partly out of actual objective data but because it effects 'feeling' (and not solely feeling as in big C 'Confidence') in a system in which such feeling can shape reality**; and that so many predictions are made that it's impossible to remember who got what right, and what wrong. After all if you predict a crash every year you're going to be right, eventually, and if predict growth every year you're (historically at least) going to be right most of the time. *but if deliberate contrarianism to experts manages to be correct a decent amount of the time then it's fair to say there's also something wrong with the experts. **"Don't worry about oil prices, we're going to sign a deal with Venezuela andor Iran in March". In April. In May. In June... Very much also a consequence of a lot of economic discourse being via think tanks and the like with very set 'partisan' views.