Zoraptor

Yep, and personally I wouldn't call it terrorism either, despite the method. That does mean it isn't terrorism when Russia does it either though. That seems pretty standard, for war, and the complete lack of any statistics beyond an age range is telling. That always suggests the absolute number is low. You'd have been better off quoting their most recent report about sexual mistreatment of POWs. Even then, the same thing is happening right now in Israel, and was very well documented as happening with the US as well. So there's an excellent case that's just par for the course for warfare but being highlighted here primarily because it's the bad guys doing it. Most of the claims of rape being systemic still resolve down to one single Ukrainian official- who got sacked for lying too outrageously.

Kursk is definitely the biggest graveyard for western weapons as Ukraine has mostly used their best units there and they're mostly armed with western weapons. (The only weapon system that is 'dominating' in Ukraine are $1000 chinese drones. The vast majority of everything else on both sides has massively underperformed in both absolute terms and in terms of expectation. In terms of the video things like the Strid122 are dominating so much that Ukraine are down to 2 (two) operational vehicles... and barring a couple of artillery strikes they've all been got by those cheap drones)

Well sure. IMO neither sides' conduct in Ukraine meets the threshold of being systemic though, for those two crimes.

The official USA position is rather too, uh, flexible to be of any use. Node #1, and thus by far the most important, in the flow diagram of actually determining whether something is 'terrorism' is "is the entity doing it friendly to us?" So this wouldn't be terrorism for the US, nor is Israel blowing up Iranian scientists or Lebanese medics who obtained pagers from HezB; but blowing up an Israeli or Ukrainian scientist would be, and AlQ blowing up a US military vessel (USS Cole) definitely is. If it's a friendly doing it (USS Liberty/ USS Stark) it's just a tragic mistake. State actors blowing up a civilian vessel also isn't always terrorism- see the Rainbow Warrior- nor is blowing up civilian infrastructure like nordstream. Of course that's node #1 for basically every country's definition of terrorism. Russia blowing up the head of Ukraine's nuclear program wouldn't be terrorism to them, but almost certainly would to the US and Ukraine. Ukraine trying to blow up the Kerch Bridge is terrorism*; Russia trying to blow up the Zatoka Bridge isn't etc. *for that the method most definitely crosses the threshold by any objective measure. Can't get much worse than using a civilian as an unwitting delivery mechanism. But even then node 1 applies for the vast majority in the west. The difference is that that happens in every war, and the more realistic types tend to acknowledge that that is inherent human nature. Give some people guns and a feeling of impunity (or utter fright/ anger/ hatred) and that's the way they react. People like to pretend otherwise and that their side is just inherently more civilised, but the more realistic know there hasn't been a conflict in history where rape and murder doesn't happen. The 'terrorist' attacks are 'worse' because they're a lot more deliberative. Someone sat down to plan the Moscow attack, someone sat down to plan the pager attack- and knew that a lot of them had gone to Lebanese medics as well as HezB.

Yes, though it isn't as bad as it sounds and does serve some purpose other than padding out the plot/ trying to humanise the characters. That's there to show that the jackal and his chief pursuer (Bianca) are different sides of the same coin- and ironically it completely fails to humanise Bianca. Who in many ways is a better Jackal than he is. Said it before but I'll say it again, their parallel lives stuff is very blatant. The bigger problem is probably the action sequences which make the Jackal look crap at his job and unbelievable that he'd be either undetected or uncaught for more than a few months at most. My overall rating for it improved quite a lot after the last episode. It was pretty obvious what was broadly going to happen if you had some meta knowledge but one thing was pure lol. Wouldn't be an unqualified recommendation by any means, but as someone who wasn't particularly invested in the previous material and wasn't expecting much I enjoyed it/ Just rather more in the way that I enjoyed 24 or The Night Agent rather than the way I enjoyed Thief/ Hitman (games, though I didn't actually hate the movie).

You could start with ordering some lovely nuclear submarines, maybe. For added sass make them Le Triomphant class. (Guess Denmark is glad he's moved on from buying Greenland)

The only thing definitely worse than having Ciri as protagonist would be bringing back Geralt as one. (Really though, I take some issue with the dev comments. The CDPR Ciri certainly wasn't very layered or amazing as a character; and wouldn't even be an option in half (? 2/3? since I can't remember the exact end conditions) the endings they wrote themselves, ie not in the Empress/ Bad endings. It's like writing TW1 with options then when TW2 comes around insist that Geralt could only really romance Triss. If that's the case, write it that way from the outset and don't give the option)

Russia has 100% been assassinating people in Ukraine, and outside- the guy who stole the helicopter and murdered his comrades who got popped in Spain in February for example. They (generally) haven't publicised it nor admitted it was them, and as with pretty much everything war related it's illegal for Ukrainians to report on those that happen internally without the approval of the Censor.

Saw a thumbnail and thought it was our finance minister who had resigned. Would have been a lovely Christmas surprise. (Too much to hope for I guess, we'll get two more years of brunette Liz Truss wondering why the reality of a country's economics doesn't match her excel spreadsheets. Yes really; she's easily our worst fm since Muldoon nearly 50 years ago and exactly what you'd expect some someone with a degree in english whose only work experience has been in PR and politics)

Ultimately the problem there was limited fab space, which was not really an AMD problem per se since the only realistic way it might not have been a problem would be if they'd held onto their fab arm (now Global Foundries). But then they may have gone bankrupt trying to hold onto it. Without a valid competitor everyone bar nVidia/ Intel was squashed onto the limited TSMC capacity, which they had to book a year in advance based on what they thought might happen. Since there was limited fab space and more or less unlimited demand it was always a question of what would make AMD more money; and that was CPUs. You can simply make a lot more of them per wafer than a GPU, and at top end the profit margin for them compared to a consumer GPU is massively greater in profit/ die space terms. So when they did acquire extra capacity it went into satisfying the CPU demand. The situation where AMD could have done better GPU wise was one where they could up production exactly how they pleased. Then the relatively low margins would have been fine since there would have been no intra AMD product competition for space. If nVidia was really limited by Samsung's capacity/ reliability they could have taken significant share.

At least they were better than the equivalents in TW2. Having to play some random dude with a claymore and no skills/ powers for a bit was not exactly the single greatest idea mankind has ever had.

The aim of youtube (or facebook/ other sm) isn't to give you content you like, it's to drive engagement which is a rather different thing. It may not work on you personally, but it works in general and on a lot of people, and outrage bait drives engagement massively which results in the vicious circle of more of it being made. As for the complaints themselves... there isn't much point dealing with the fringe ends on either side. In general though, there are few complaints about well written characters. People don't complain about Princess Leia in SW, or Sarah Connor in Terminator; or playing femshep or Lara Croft or Cassandra from AC: Odyssey. Indeed, they tend to get complaints from the other side ('designed for male gaze' or whatever). As for what the more reasonable people tend to complain about, well, I can only really use the same example I did last time something similar came up. Basically no one complains about Omar Little from The Wire being gay. Because he's a well written character with realistic (or at least having verisimilitude/ consistency enough that you can easily forgive the very occasional bit of dramatic license) motives and behaviour who happens to be gay as well. Then you compare him with someone who did get a lot of flack for being gay: Anthony Rapp's character from ST: Discovery. I watched four seasons of that ending only months ago and I cannot remember his character's name, as his only character trait was... being gay and an engineer. His husband's only trait: gay doctor. They're extremely easy to dislike as characters as a result. It's not really a result of them being gay, it's a result of that being all that they are. If it's youtube or facebook that tends to be a bit too subtle a distinction.

You might not Bruce. Ciri is at least technically bisexual. It's mostly people taking the mickey out of those who object to playing the 'wrong' sex etc. Most of the people objecting to Ciri aren't doing it because she has ovaries. Ciri is a ludicrous choice for a protagonist canonically, and was quite possibly the least interesting character in the entirety of W3. Albeit W3 had an exceptionally strong cast of characters, with maybe two other misses though for different reasons than being uninteresting*. I'd be a lot happier if it were Triss or Phillipa if they aren't going to have character creation. It's kind of a perfect storm: Ciri should be massively overpowered, she isn't very interesting and they managed to, for once, write an almost perfect ending for a protagonist which there's a decent chance they're going to retroactively mess up now. *Witcher 3 spoiler

Some eastern european indie have released a trailer for their upcoming RPG. Guess it might be of some interest? (Ciri --> meh. Though it being Witcher 4 always made that choice more likely)

I suspect it's going to be hard to actually get hold of since the pricing is- compared to currentyear nV and AMD- certainly aggressive. You also have to wonder how many they'll make given it's not likely to have much of a profit margin due to the aggressive pricing. (The entirety of NZ's preorder stock sold out in minutes which is either an excellent indicator for demand, or rather a bad sign of supply) Hopefully enough for Intel to stick with their consumer offerings despite their current managerial etc issues.

The Whispered World: SE currently a giveaway.

Mr Bates vs the Post Office is excellent. I have been watching Day of the Jackal (up to e8, so two to go; doubt my views will change much though). In many ways it's very good, but it all rings a bit hollow. It has the trouble you always get when the script calls for writing a very intelligent/ competent person (well, two here really) of it being far more easy to describe someone as very intelligent and have people say he/ she is than to show it. The demands of the drama require him to do pretty stupid stuff in order for there to be a plausible set up for him potentially being caught; yet his chief pursuer still has to have extremely specific knowledge and make huge and implausible leaps to get close. Fortunately it isn't quite enough to be outright implausible, but it runs a very narrow line. It's also deeply unsubtle with its parallels between the lives of the Jackal and his chief pursuer and how they're same coin, different sides. OTOH, I've seen people flabbergasted when the comparison is pointed out, so it clearly wasn't too unsubtle for some. Eddie Redmayne is very good? in the role. The question mark is because you're always aware that it's Actor, Acting, whenever he's on screen; but that is how you'd broadly expect an assassin to act. The rest are functional, with Charles Dance being a bit wasted. None of the characters get much beyond archetypes and caricatures but this is, ultimately, higher brow 24 with pretensions so that works fine in context.

Ah, like Israel's. Not a surprise to anyone anyway, since the CIA were using Sednaya as a black site. Also cannot take any criticism of Assad seriously here since you didn't lead by condemning the Burger ISIS and Menorah ISIS use of torture and extrajudicial killings. I also note that the most strident supporters of the Rules Based Order and opponents of invasions and seizing land haven't lead with their strident condemnation of Israel's invasion of Syria and seizure of its land, so I can safely ignore anything else they have to say, twice over. (Yeah, really not a fan of that style, as I find it kind of pathetic. Still good for goose, good for gander; and I'd be a lot lot better at it) The Seal of the Prophets isn't exclusive to ISIS. Though it does tend to be used by the more head choppy and ISIS adjacent. Best I've ever said about Assad was that he was the least bad option of those practically available which, sadly, we're about to have proved correct. Some refugees will go home, and a whole lot more will leave when the squabbling inevitably starts. At which point we'll get a whole lot of "who could have predicted this" "oh those arabs, typical, shame they can't learn from their betters" and "not our fault" from the usual suspects who will, as always, forget that they were cheerleading and supporting it the whole way through. Then cue another round of how anyone saying anything different has to be a sockpuppet rather than just someone blessed with the most basic of critical faculties. Making up a mythic genuinely moderate opposition which has zero chance of winning because it doesn't exist happens every single time.

Please feel free to find where I've ever had anything positive to say about the Taleban. Again, I'll wait, but not while holding my breath*. On the other hand I don't have to look far for you saying positive things about rebranded al Qaeda, now do I? I am 100% of the opinion that something can both be bad for someone 'I' don't like, and bad for 'me' as well. *about the closest I've said is that they were militarily effective. Which was of course only half the story- the most relevant part to this situation being that while they hung on in there they only won because 20 years of western reconstruction abjectly failed.

Maybe, this time, Al Qaeda will be OK? the thread. I mean, they never have in the past, but with the west giving them money for reconstruction* maybe this time they'll be OK?? since we know the one thing radical islamists care about is money. Just look at bin Laden, traded a life shut in a dingy compound and caves for a lifestyle fit for a multi hundred millionaire... oh wait, that was the other way around, wasn't it? Won't start fighting people who aren't quite wahhabi enough for them or look at them the wrong way or people Turkey doesn't like. Won't blow up shia shrines, won't force convert people, won't export their revolution are won't end up making the US and Europe regret being dumb and self destructive enough to help them. Again. Why even try thinking like that. It's one thing to start believing you can fly when you've already fallen off the cliff, it's quite another to believe that gravity doesn't exist before that. Name one radical islamic government that hasn't tried to export itself everywhere. I'll wait, but won't be holding my breath. Best case scenario is Libya; and Syria was starting from a far lower base than Libya had. *couldn't even type that with a straight face. They make Ukraine jump through hoops for loans, but they're going to just give Al Qaeda a load of money for them to build apartment blocks or something... the level of credulity required to believe that is far higher than believing al Jolani is a Nigerian Prince whose assets have been unfairly frozen.

Yes, but it's bad for Russia, so time to celebrate. Who even cares if it's also bad for us too* as well as the Syrian civilians we purport to care about. Which, again, sums up the international attitude to Team Blue. They'll even cheer on al Qaeda. *what's the old Polish joke? A polish guy finds a lamp and gets three wishes. First wish, for Poland to get invaded by the Mongols. Second wish, for Poland to get invaded by the Mongols. Third wish, you guessed it. Genie asks him why he hates his country so much. The Pole replies replies "I don't, but if they come here they come and go back through Russia"

This is an absolute disaster for the Kurds, even more so than for the Christians, Alawites, Shia etc. As soon as Trump gets in the US troops- also illegally occupying Syria- will go from the Turkish border and that will be that; more peaceful western backed ethnic cleansing that people will contort themselves into knots convincing themselves is... well actually, since it's Trump a lot will probably decide it is ethnic cleansing this time. For anyone wondering, Erdogan's plan is Misak-i-Milli. That is, essentially, the Turkish claims on Syria and Iraq down to Aleppo and Mosul, southern Georgia, eastern Greece and the Aegean Islands, Armenia, Cyprus. They already got Iskanderiya in one of the most dodgy referendums every held, expect more in similar circumstances. They had a cadet branch of ISIS (Jaish Khalid ibn al Walid) on their border up until 2018, and gave that active support. Israel loves radical Islamists killing whoever they like as it gives their radical Judaists cover for killing whoever they want. Peas in a pod. Also see Israel's role in founding and fostering Hamas. As for the people... well, they keep on voting for the Ben-Gvir's, Bezazel Smotrich's and Netanyahu's of the world. If people blame Palestinians for Hamas when their last election was 17 years ago you have to blame Israel for constantly electing the same crappy people and that is on the Israeli voters and public. You're either misremembering or the author is writing fiction*. The Russian intervention started in Sept 2015. The siege of Homs ended more than a year earlier. Marie Colvin died in, well, 2012. *may well be, Marie Colvin got killed by a 'targeted' strike according to western accusations. Which would mean Syria used precision attacks precisely three times in the war. Once to kill 28 Ahrar ash Sham commanders, once to kill Zahran Alloush, head of Jaish al Islam and Saudi Arabia's proxy in Damascus. And third, to, uh, kill two French/ American journalists besieged in Homs.

If the government fails Macron gets to put it a technocratic one by fiat and essentially rule by decree for a year before new elections. That's every 'moderate' centrist who only has their country's interest at heart's wet dream.

I'd replace that 'after' with an 'if', at least for the rebuilding. If there were a Marshall Plan type approach of rebuilding economies for (more or less) mutual benefit, sure, but that approach hasn't been in evidence since the Marshall Plan. ( 1) much of the financial 'aid' isn't aid, it's loans. They will inevitably get one of those lovely IMF management plans designed to benefit the lenders 2) much of the 'genuine' financial aid goes straight back to the donor country 3) none of the fundamental issues Ukraine had have been dealt with and the war has made them worse without exception(?) Ultimately the problem with aid is the same it's been since the 50s. It's very easy to make promises to be fulfilled in the future and frame them in generous language, very hard to pay the costs demanded by them when they come due. So you get 'aid' instead, which is designed to benefit the person giving it as much as possible. For example Ukraine would take up basically the entire EU development fund and add a lot to the CAP costs if it joined outright- and that's ~50% of the EU annual budget. We've already seen how some EU farmers responded to Ukrainian imports undercutting them; not at all well and that during active warfare. Political considerations will mean that Ukraine gets loans, they'll be for work done by western companies and paid for by selling off every Ukrainian asset possible to foreigners. People won't come back, can't be forced back since they're EU citizens now, and the demographics will get even worse as every young person leaves to- stereotypically- clean toilets in London Berlin/Warsaw. Most of the money 'given' will, inevitably, not end up going to Ukraine beyond some depressed wages. Realistically of course some sort of weaksauce association agreement with a roadmap is about the best they can hope for. Which will still have just about every drawback above for Ukraine, but be a lot more palatable to the average EU voter. Worse, some of the suggestions being made now by western politicians are outright suicidal for Ukraine as a country. Having an army with an average age of 45 isn't a great situation, but at least those getting killed had a chance to have children. Demanding that 18-25 year olds and women get drafted for combat duty is demographic suicide given Ukraine's population age pyramid is the sort of shape Picasso might design rather than Imhotep. You kind of hope that they aren't expressing actual positions but ones for negotiations instead ("you think Ukraine is running out of soldiers? Well think again! They're now prepared to draft both the 18 year olds in the country!) but they are what is being stated)

One of the worst offenders is Hamish de Bretton Gordon, and he was an actual factual British officer- and a very senior one. OK, so he writes for the Torygraph so a certain amount of upper class twit is expected but you don't really expect distilled redditor level delusion despite that. "Challengers are about to sweep Putin's Conscripts Aside" indeed. Circle jerking your experience from thousands of hours in HoI or Battlefield is comparatively mild.