This both sides rhetoric kinda breaks down in the face of there being a very clear aggressor/invader to this conflict. A dam was destroyed because it was occupied by an invading force. The invading force was there because the invadee would not join the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia did not choose diplomacy.
> Most people who die in wars do so in “boring” ways like collateral damage, shrapnel from firefights, or even starvation. That is what happened in Bucha...
This passage alone is why the OP shouldn't be taken seriously.
On the contrary, the “boring” deaths should be taking very seriously, there is nothing light or humorous about pointing out that most people die not from sensationalized ways that make good headlines, but from avoidable conflicts.
For example four US State Department employees killed in Benghazi Libya got wayyyyy more coverage than the millions of Libyans living in a violent failed state, including the thousands who were just killed in a Kakhovka-like dam disaster directly attributable to NATO’s invasion in 2011.
Or for example one Kashoggi got wayyyy more coverage than the millions facing starvation in Yemen. YCombinator even mused aloud whether they can take Saudi money BECAUSE OF KASHOGGI. This is obscene! What about the other people, do they count? Did millions of dead Afghans count? Bengalis?
As for Bucha — yes of course there were war crimes which should be fully investigated and prosecuted, and dozens of people were killed in gruesome ways. But FAR MORE people in Bucha were killed in the way I said — shrapnel during a firefight - fleschettes indiscriminately hitting civilians including with neutral white armbands:
That should not be surprising. You should look past media’s hunger for sensationalism… I spoke to ACTUAL PEOPLE who went through Bucha afternath, I heard eyewitness accounts from people from Kyiv who were there and saw the holes in top floors ripped by tanks, firing at fighters that have RPGs. And even the Azov battallion had people in Bucha, deployed to fight agains the tanks…
…and ALL of it could have been avoided, including while the tanks were going to Kyiv in a comically slow plodding way, with stops along the way “running out of fuel”. Here is the Israeli PM in his own words saying he negotiated a truce in principle between the two presidents, but was blocked by USA and UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs
Much of what I have personally (anecdotally) seen around proximate cause seem to point to Russian sabotage. I find arguments like this to be pointless though as we will all have our pet theories and research we want to believe as we are not likely to find definitive proof. It is easier to just point out that the side that gains the most from this and bears ultimate responsibility for this is Russia as that is irrefutable
In every conflict in the world, one side always says it’s the other’s fault completely. And that the other side didn’t engage in diplomacy in good faith. But many of them are proxy wars between large imperial interests, that topple governments and undermine democracies. For example in Yemen, the Sunnis say that Iran is completely at fault for fomenting a Houthi revolution and and all the blame falls squarely on them. While Iran would say that they simply gave moral support to Houthi rebels and that the Sunni hegemony and Saudi coalition has been committing war crimes for decades and Yemenites are fed up with it.
Depending on if you were Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Arab, you’d often be so biased that any hint of additional context or nuance would sound preposterous. But as rational people we should avoid one-sided narratives, whether it is in Niger, Armenia, etc. Usually the same patterns repeat and sectarian violence happens in the aftermath of the fall of an empire (Ottoman, British, Russian, etc.) It happens in much the same way, and each side blames the other (eg Pakistani Muslims vs Indian Hindus). We as imperial countries simply take sides and our public is told what to think (“we were always at war eith eastasia”.)
Conflicts always have multiple sides. When you live inside one empire or another (Russia, China, USA), the mainstream media’s rhetoric is always one-sided. But the rest of the world outside the bubble (billions of people) see both sides.
As usual, most of these conflicts could have been avoided, in dozens of ways, if cooler heads prevailed at any point for decades.
I collected all context you are probably missing in one place, so you can better understand the conflict from other sides: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397
Ultimately one side invaded another and chose violence instead of diplomacy as you pointed out in your original comment. This party has a history of such violence. Any other extrapolations are mostly moot and pointless
There is no “ultimately” in history, that eclipses everything that led up to it, or since it. Everything has significant reasons that led up to it, and understanding those reasons and legitimate concerns from all parties is KEY to making lasting peace agreements. Click the link above to find out what they are.
Here are more links showing leaders of billions of people, and the polls of the people themselves, seeing more than one side and putting blame on USA and NATO for instance, for backing Russia into a corner like a cornered animal, arming Ukraine, blocking all peace agreements and efforts and goading it to lash out with this horrific pre-emptive invasion, which has been systematically called in the US “unprovoked and unjustified” as a concerted effort to make you not look at the man behind the curtain:
Even in the centers of the most hawkish anti-Russian sentiment we have leaders warning about all this before it even started. For example Nigel Farage in UK 2014:
Here in the US, dire warnings about NATO expansion were given by every single ambassador to Russia, and every foreign policy expert concurred (including the architect of the USSR containment policy), but were systematically ignored by the Clinton and Bush administrations:
And even last year, US politicians slightly outside the establishment got together and tried to call for peace talks. They were swiftly rebuked by the Biden administration:
Today, most Republicans running for president, and many in Congress, are skeptical of the narrative, and would take steps to usher in peace if they got more power.
So no — ignoring BILLIONS of people, EXPERTS in our own countries whose job it is to study these things, and even political leaders in OUR country, is not reasonable. There is a war hawk “establishment” in imperial countries (USA, Russia, China) that always pushes for more conflict, if it is allowed, and intelligence agencies work behind the topple democracies and make it happen, until the more civilian-level policians (eg State department) get involved once the ground is set: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JoW75J5bnnE
Educate yourself to see why there is more than one side to this.
I gave you a master link to everything, but here are great documentaries also from 2014 when it all went down:
No sorry I'm simply pointing you back to your own rhetoric. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm a NATO or America apologist. I just find it laughable the mental hoops that some people will jump through to avoid pointing the finger at the most violent party to this conflict. There was a diplomatic solution to be found, Russia chose violence. They used lies and deceit to justify it as they have in all conflicts since 1991. Ultimately they wage war for the sake of capitalist ambitions just as all of those other governments and institutions you listed
Well, many people here ARE apologists for USA and NATO, they simply don’t know what they have done, or really anything outside the cherrypicked narrative they have been carefully shown by their domestic maintream media. (Similar to people in Russia and China being conditioned by their governments.)
But what do you mean by mental hoops? Let me reiterate, the view is held by:
Billions of people, and their leaders outside the NATO bubble
You gotta start realizing the role George W Bush played in all this, at the very least — pushing for Ukraine in NATO at the very time when its own public overwhelmingly opposed it.
The mental hoops are for those who continue to repeat the stock phrases
“open door policy”
“purely defensive”
“unprovoked and unjustified”
“weapons of mass destruction”
“hacked the election”
“axis of evil”
“they hate us for our freedoms”
These phrases are carefully tested w focus groups, and dropped if they don’t work (eg “islamofascism” and “crusade” was briefly used by Bush admin before being retired in favor of “weapons of mass destruction” and “axis of evil”.)
I think the post I responded to doesnmt address much of anything I said in the post that it was responding to. But I digress. I tried to address the fact that my posts aren’t directed ONLY to that one person but to other readers here too. What did I not address?
There was a diplomatic solution to be found, Russia chose violence. They used lies and deceit to justify it as they have in all conflicts since 1991. Ultimately they wage war for the sake of capitalist ambitions just as all of those other governments and institutions you listed
This? Ok. Well, I am glad the post mentioned that Russia is just one of multiple imperialist countries, who wage war for the sake of capitalist ambitions. Russia also waged this specific war, and the one in Georgia, to preserve its Black Sea fleet, and prevent its neighbors from joining an enemy alliance (NATO) whose raison d’etre even after the fall of the Soviet Union was to be a military alliance against Russia. This isn’t purely Capitalist.
When Kennedy blockaded and threatened Cuba and led to the Cuban missile crisis, the justification was well-understood: USA cannot afford to have a country on its border allied with its geopolitical rivals and pave the way for missiles to be placed pointing at US cities, ready to strike them within a few minutes. I can understand Kennedy. But back then, these statesmen (Kennedy and Khrustchev) went about it constructively, they established a direct line between the highest levels to avoid a misunderstanding, and Kennedy gave a peace speech in which he said “… Above all, nuclear powers should avoid bringing the other to a choice between a humiliating defeat or a nuclear war. To pursue that course of action in the nuclear age would show the bankruptcy of our foreign policy or a collective death-wish for the world.”
Yet today the very thing Kennedy warned about is the explicit policy of the Biden admin and establishment. No talks. No negotiations. Push to a humiliating retreat — they won’t dare start a nuclear war. All the while volunteering Ukrainians to a meat grinder that could have been avoided. And the justification for no direct line, no talks sounds like kindergarteners: “but he staaaarted it!”
Incidentally, before the Cuban missile crisis the US secretly put nuclear missiles on Turkey aimed at USSR. But when USSR did that in Cuba we freaked out. We took the missiles off Turkey. Incidentally, today we have missiles in Turkey again pointed at Russia — the very thing that was “too close” last time. Don’t you see that we are constantly inching closer and provoking / poking the bear… so to say it’s “unprovoked” is strange.
In 1954 USSR applied to NATO and was rejected, NATO said it seemed like such a joke that they wouldn’t take it seriously. In the early 2000s Putin openly said he wanted Russia to join NATO. Bush rejected Russia but forcibly pushed Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, even when their own population didn’t want it. My question is - why? When does the US choose diplomacy that it actually upholds? Native Americans? North Korea? Iran? All diplomatic treaties broken by the very next administration. We do not have a good track record of keeping our diplomatic commitments but somehow others are supposed to trust us implicitly cause it’s us.
Russia and Ukraine did choose diplomacy. Minsk agreements I and II. Normandy Format meetings. And one week into the war both Putin and Zelensky were ready to sign an agreement to resolve everything. Naftali Bennett said that the US killed the deal!
Merkel admitted the Minsk II agreements were to “buy time to arm Ukraine”. And Zelensky openly and proudly said this year he never intended to implement the Minsk accords — despite running on that very platform and being elected to make peace! And all throughout 2021 Russia warned and warned and asked NATO for guarantees that they wouldn’t place missiles in Ukraine etc. and was told that they are not open to negotiation.
https://apnews.com/article/business-russia-ukraine-moscow-se...
And yet somehow it’s only Russia singled out as as “not engaging in diplomacy”? To characterize that way is, in my opinion, betraying an unmistakbd double standard / bias.
Don’t get me wrong, I very much want for there to be a diplomatic solution, along the lines of Minsk II. I would love it if the next US president would be an adult, apologize for Bush’s admin and come up with a roadmap whereby Ukraine, Georgia and Russia will all join NATO on the same day in some time in future, but to do that they must agree to a roadmap that starts with a cease fire, restoring relations, then eventually solving their border disputes (yes with Georgia too), and working together to rebuild.
But the current war hawks would NEVER accept that, because that would strengthen Russia and Ukraine and Georgia etc. And as Adam Schiff put it well in 2019: “we aid Ukraine and her people so they can fight the Russians over there — so we don’t have to fight them over here.” https://m.facebook.com/IndianMilitaryUpdate/videos/united-st...
If we stopped flipping Russia’s neighbors against it, then they might actually grow strong enough again as a military and economic bloc to compete with us on a level playing field, economically and otherwise, and we don’t want that! We don’t want China to either!
I just didn’t want to be accused of not addressing what people said.. the topic is very important and I was just trying to relate what billions of people around the world seem to be thinking.
I have strong feelings against permanently remote. I feel like this hasn't been fully thought out. Face to face interaction is much more high bandwidth than remote video calls (in other words, it conveys more information). Not to mention that this transfers the costs of office space to the employee, maybe this is why all employers are quick to jump on this bandwagon. Curious to see where this new trend will fall in 2021.
There's a thing I see all the time online where people massively underestimate human variance. While people have many things in common, they are all over the place when it comes to many important emotional and mental characteristics. There is no one-size-fits all for anything behavioral, not even close.
If they say it's bad for their long term well-being, they very likely know exactly what they're talking about even if your own experience is very different from that.
I initially read the comment the same way, but I believe they were saying that when the pandemic is over you won't be isolated, not that isolation wouldn't be bad for wellbeing.
I'm like the parent commenter in feeling office work helps me:
For me, I don't do social very well, but I still need to interact with people, I get on well with people (AFAICT) but seldom does anyone ever really want to spend leisure time with me. Work forces me to have social interactions that help my "sanity" (by which I mean: a vague hand-wavey notion of mental health).
I'm "happy" day-to-day with hiding away at home; but I tend to spiral downwards as I don't get much social interaction outside of work. Banter is good medicine.
For me this is a midlife thing.
YMMV, and the parent is probably quite different, but that's my recent experience.
Many companies have been reimbursing home internet and electricity bills since March. Mine even paid for an chair, desk, monitor and lamp of my choosing for my home office.
I hope this becomes the norm if remote becomes mainstream
This is probably not the norm. I have a friend that works in a call center, and they've been working remotely during the pandemic. Her company won't pay for anything; she uses her personal laptop, personal consumer-grade Internet connection, etc. The consumer ISP doesn't provide their stated upload and download ever, and the ISP charged her $100 to come out and investigate the issue without fixing it. (You run a speedtest to their speedtest node, and it doesn't live up to what is advertised. How can the ISP turn around and charge the customer for telling them that!?) The company won't pay for the debugging. When the Internet dies, she's told "welp, you're done for today" and doesn't get paid. (She also works 4 days x 10 hours, so one bad day costs more than the average 5 x 8 employee.)
It is kind of a nightmare making every employee responsible for being the IT director for free. I imagine that most companies are not going to see good results here. (It's good when it's good, but what do you do when it gets bad? Nobody has a plan.)
All in all, consumer ISPs seem to be doing pretty good with the pandemic, but I worry that it's mostly a string of good luck rather than solid infrastructure investments.
> You run a speedtest to their speedtest node, and it doesn't live up to what is advertised. How can the ISP turn around and charge the customer for telling them that!?
Easy, the CPE equipment is garbage or placed in a shitty location. I'm a nerd, but my ancient wifi setup started to struggle with the entire family working and schooling all day. I upgraded to a Ubiquiti solution with multiple antennas and life is good.
I worked on the CPE team for Google Fiber, and indeed, WiFi performance is something that we spent a lot of time on and never got perfect. The average ISP using off-the-shelf CPE doesn't stand a chance. I fear that the CPE is not the problem in my friend's case, and the ISP is just aggressively oversubscribing, and so nothing can be done. Switching to the business plan won't make a difference unless they drop all consumer traffic whenever the business subscriber needs to send and receive, and they are not charging enough money to lead me to believe they're doing that. I don't know anything about DOCSIS, though... I have worked at two ISPs and they both used GPON. The limitations of GPON, however, I understand well ;)
With COVID wfh, I've definitely heard alot of horror stories about local ISPs, especially with time of day based issues. (10 & 2) seem to be high-disruption periods. Where our folks have gotten engaged, 30/35 times it's wireless issues.
One thing that I would offer is for your friend to try to get input from neighbors in a rough proximity. I did have an issue a few years ago with Time Warner Cable where a contractor screwed up and hung the wrong grade coax on a pole.
Commercial internet does not cost a lot of money. I do a cable modem and while my speeds are a bit slower than the residential option (for the same money) I don't have bandwidth caps or 'talk to the hand' when an issue happens. Night and day between the two experiences. Worth looking into.
I agree. The problem is cost (higher, not being paid for by the company), and rewarding the ISP for their poor service by paying them more.
My philosophy is that you just have to accept that we messed up by letting one company monopolize the space, and pay them more for their better service... but not many people agree with me.
I work for one of the big US companies and I asked last week about this; the HR lady virtually showed me the finger, very polite, of course. Not a local policy in the local branch...
A fair number of people probably feel like you do. But I strongly suspect that, at least with many companies, a certain percentage of people never come back into the office except sporadically. So even for those who do return full-time, the atmosphere and work style will be changed for an indefinite period of time.
I know a number of people in the process of permanently moving out of cities--in several cases to rural locations many hours away.
For people with houses, the office space cost is likely less than the commuting cost. But it is indeed an issue for many in tiny city apartments.
I see this comment in every one of these discussions, but finding new venues for social contact is a fairly simple adjustment to make once you accept that it's necessary.
I’m happy to have the cost transferred (some parts are debateable, I need internet, a desk, and a monitor for home anyways) if it means no more commuting and no more open offices. My focus has significantly increased in the past few months.
I don't think you're wrong. There will certainly be some sort of correction of the bullish remote-work spirit.
But the 2020 lockdowns will fundamentally increase the amount of remote work permanently to at least some degree.
Like how before Bernie Sanders ran for president, no one in mainstream US politics was even talking about socialized healthcare. Or how before Andrew Yang, no one outside of silicon valley had ever heard of UBI.
The Times has actually been very progressive about WFH policies. Partially because they've been consolidating the number of floors they occupy at 620 8th Ave, so there's legitimately less room for everyone. But every team was designed to be remote friendly and there was very little expectation to be in the office. Some people lived in NYC and still refused to bother to come in for months at a time.
New Yorkers love to hate Time Square but it's really not so terrible, just crowded. It's in close proximity to everything, and it looks pretty at night. And as you said, it's really easy to get to.
Yes, the Port Authority: aka the world's worst bus station. But you go a few blocks and you're in Hell's Kitchen which I find a pretty interesting neighborhood with nice ethnic restaurants. Or walk south 10 blocks or so into Chelsea.
When I'm in NYC I often stay at about 42nd and 10th out of choice even if I'm not at a Javits event. It's near things but is out of the craziness of Times Square itself.
If you take a bus to Port Authority, it couldn't be more convenient. And I would guess that the Times Square subway stop may be the one spot where the most lines converge.
Call the FAA yourself and ask. They have a hotline for medical related questions. I have had heart related issues in the past and AMEs gave me conflicting answers about the way forward but the FAA is the source of truth
If you insist on having an airman medical certificate becaue you're already a rated pilot and need it to make money, then special issuance makes sense.
But if you're not a paid pilot, you're better off not going down that route, since once you're on record as having a deficiency, that's a permanent concern to the FAA. And if they decline the special issuance, you're also not eligible for the drivers license medical.
I would advise nobody with issues who wants to fly for hobby reasons to go down the PPL route since you can get banned for failng a medical. There's almost no upside and huge downside to risking that.
Definitely agree. In my case it was use of antidepressants. I thought the whole country is basically doing them so surely that’s not a problem when I went to an FAA AME for the PPL 3rd class medical. Well now I’m fucked for life apparently. There only 3 antidepressants they accept for a special issuance with costly on-going tests each year. Even if I’m off them entirely it’s still a problem.
I did witness an AME re-approve a commercial guy with a DUI though while in the waiting room. Good on you, FAA.
I deleted my Facebook almost 8 years ago and never looked back. Was hard at first but great for my mental health. I encourage you to try disabling it for a while and keeping up with your network with alternatives
have you seen any implementations of internal tracing like APM being used with Grafana? I think lack of a good open source alternative to New Relic or Datadog APM kinda killed OSS monitoring for my company.
The Jaeger integration is a good step in the right direction though, kudos!
AFAIK, You can have internal trace markers, not just between apps. I've used that (for Jaegger) in one of our Windows Application to see the call-graph (it's a level editor for our game), and it was tracking the loading of various resources across multiple threads, then it was visualized with jaeger and even zipkin.
