notsoshaihulud

joined 1 month ago
[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The belief that an commercial IQ test is an "objective measure of your intellect" is a pretty good subjective measure of your intellect.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

tech and age, need for investment.

  • fediverse is complicated for scientists not doing computer sciency stuff
  • senior researchers are less flexible with new tech, so similarity w twitter means they don't have to learn a new system
  • Already present audience means there's little risk in investing time in BS.
[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Let's say that there is an honest, clear, standard diplomatic protocol running as you described. Trump's concurrent activity, specifically mentioned in this interview, sets the tone and not in a positive way.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

they are deals between Israel and other countries, without including Palestine. Here the deal would be between the main protagonists Ukraine and Russia.

That's exactly my point. The present style of negotiations makes the impression like this was a deal between Russia and USA.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

If someone ignores all the cues about the discussion's context (trumpian peace) let it be implied (thread's topic; my first post), or explicit ("the point I was making" and beside the point of the present discussion), they shouldn't complain about the discussion's style either.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

The point I was making is that you can't make lasting peace through flimsy one-sided negotiations, but the trump brand of peacemaking is about quick "results" with single-presidential-term durability that solves very little on the long run, just pushes the problems to the next presidential term (which may be his own this time...).

Your comparison of Hamas and Russia doesn't only lack nuance but blatantly ignores crucial geopolitical differences in worldwide influence, military might, and general motivations, which are all totally beside the point of the present discussion.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

Clickbait title, and then partial summary for more clickbait? OP, could you please update the summary?

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 119 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (11 children)

I remain unimpressed by CNN reporters because he has not asked the most important question: What will guarantee Russia's adherence to any kind of peace deal?

It's boring to repost it the Nth time but the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was quite clear about these matters:

  1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
  2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories...
  3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest...
  4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Yet, putin kicked nearly every single point in the memorandum the moment he felt ready. Why would the same leader act differently in the future?

It's eerily similar in my view to the Abraham accords. Trump negotiated bypassing Palestinians and then we got Oct 7 and the war that spiraled from it. These "deals" are as flimsy as a CyberTruck, but it's also very trumpy. He gets to act like a peacemaker and then his successor will deal with the consequent shit. Same thing happened in Afghanistan.

*edit: also, if someone wants to be "fair" (i'd rather say naive) one can consider the official Russian narrative, but again that narrative explicitly goes against the Budapest Memorandum, meaning, they are very open about not respecting treaties they sign.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

investigations into crimes against the financial infrastructure of the United States.

this cracked me up.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (5 children)

holy shit.... i suspect ET will get himself killed within the next few years

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

of course. they do it because people are insecure.

[–] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The NIH used to have an electric outlet with a large sign saying EV charging:D Spending 60 hours on a 1KW trickle charge on the guvmint's dime is awesome!

 

The current hostile corporate takeover in the USA and the clear loss of political power of the common people, I started wondering what happened if people used consumption as their leverage. Since the system is designed for continuous growth, what would happen if a mass movement of people stopping buying new non-essential consumer goods?

It would send a much stronger message than angry public protests. Thoughts?

Edit 1: Received some fantastic responses one of these highlighted February 28th as the "National No Spend Day" that we can consider the rehearsal.

*Do not make any purchases Do not shop online, or in-store, No Amazon, No Walmart, No Best Buy, Nowhere!

Do not spend money on: Fast Food,Gas,Major Retailers Do not use Credit or Debit Cards for non essential spending

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Only buy essentials of absolutely necessary (Food, Medicine, Emergency Supplies) If you must spend, ONLY support small, local businesses.*

This movement is the definition of equitable, not spending means everybody can contribute within their means, and if you can't afford to buy shit anyway, you're already doing your part!

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2025/02/12/national-no-spend-day-economic-blackout-amazon-walmart/78410711007/

view more: next ›