You understood it! I’m so proud of you. Actually I think you’re kind of special because the reference requires stitching together some desperate signals. I think you’re pretty creative.
[not knowing if a machine or a human wrote a twitter post is a bad thing]
And what difference does it make, wether some content was written by an algorithm or it was written by professional staff, when the objective might be the same: to misguide / influence you to act in someone else's favour
A brief conversation is usually all it takes me to notice even the more elaborate bots. I would share my methods, but I'd prefer they not figure it out too quickly. Suffice it to say bots just don't behave the way a human would.
We've arrived to a very satisfying conclusion here: politics has always (mostly) been the biggest of all scams. Wether its a team of script writing artists, or the state of the art machine generated content, its the same worthless junk.
Working in quite the prominent big tech in Europe. 7k+ slack members. We abuse slack. inter-team daily work, intra teams coordination. Squads / topic q&a's, code reviews. Tribe based knowledge transfer, feedback, and many lulz. Of course an army of bots /webhooks about metrics, usage tresholds, alarms, even customer specific channels with automated bot support.
All the platforms have wonderful apps, even the web fallback is feature complete, and a breeze to use.
The ecosystem of 3rd party integrations and apps is just incredibly big...
All of this works consistently, probably more than 99.99 of uptime, and almost never we had any service disruption.
Fun idea you got, but not exactly, in some european languages, "sweet water" refers to drinking water, as opposed to what would be "salt water", water from seas and oceans.
Acqua dolce in Italian is literally sweet water opposed to acqua salata, salt water. It's a common mistake to translate literally expressions and grammatical constructs from one's native language to a foreign language. I probably did it this reply without noticing it: it's long enough to contain some bug.
I'm not the person you asked, but the very well-known understanding, going back probably to Napoleon or earlier (among foreign policy experts), is that Ukraine has geopolitics. Geography is far more important to national power than non-experts realize.
Without Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, Russia loses sea access to the Black Sea and thus the Mediterranean for their navy (and also for trade), which historically has been a primary determinant of Russian military influence in Europe. Otherwise, they only have northern ports which are frozen and easily choked off (and ports way over on the Pacific - imagine having to sail your navy around Eurasia in order to attack or defend).
More importantly, Ukraine's geography is easy to move large forces across, in that respect a major battlefield (with due respect to Ukrainians). Napoleon and the Nazis both crossed through that region on their way to Russia, and when Russia attacks West, they go through Ukraine. Russian wants to control it and to prevent others from controlling it.
By controlling Ukraine, Russia can put more pressure on, have more influence over, Ukraine's neighbors, including Poland, and further cut off Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia from their NATO allies.
Finally, Putin wants glory - don't underestimate the personal characteristics, such as ego, of unaccountable dictators - and to recreate the Soviet empire and the illusion of power. An independent, democratic Ukraine both undermines that appearance (and perception is everything for dictators) and embarasses Putin's claim to power as an authoritarian dictator.
> Without Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, Russia loses sea access to the Black Sea and thus the Mediterranean for their navy (and also for trade),
That's untrue. Sevastopol is the main port and naval base in the Black Sea, but Russia has plenty of others, and some are even undergoing expansion - Novorosiisk ( the backup one). Sevastopol is in Crimea, but was shared under an agreement between the Russian and Ukrainian navies. So in reality, Russia gained nothing there besides an extra front for their current invasion of Ukraine.
They gained exactly what they wanted by taking crimea, the inability to deploy nato forces and equipment there and domestic contorl of their leased naval port in crimea.
Basically nato stated that yep, ukraine (and georgia) should join them, later on when the ukraine coup happened and got a pro western government, russia was going: yep - possibility of nato on crimea and losing our haval base there is not going to happen, it's ours now.
But that didn't achieve anything. NATO can still deploy forces and equipment in Odessa or Mykolaiv, or in Romania or Bulgaria or Turkey, and can still easily block access to the Mediterranean.
It all depends on your point of view - the russian point of view is that nato controlled crimea is much more unwanted, and would and leave them much more cornered compared to nato controlled Odessa and Mykolaiv (and that point shouldn't be too hard to realize by looking at the map). And they wanted to keep their naval base there, which they now can.
Romania, Bulgaria doesn't border Russia , Turkey is not on the land border and they have decent relations with them. But sure, they're likely not happy with that either - they just can't and will not do anything about it. With Crimea/Ukraine - they could.
> That's untrue. Sevastopol is the main port and naval base in the Black Sea, but Russia has plenty of others, and some are even undergoing expansion - Novorosiisk ( the backup one).
I have never seen someone claim that Novorosiisk was a sufficient port. Maybe it's a capacity issue?
> Sevastopol is in Crimea, but was shared under an agreement between the Russian and Ukrainian navies.
It is in a foreign country, an unfriendly one. That greatly limits Russia's freedom of action.
Novorosiisk is undergoing expansion for precisely that reason. And Ukraine wasn't exactly unfriendly before the invasions, the Sevastopol lease was prolonged just before that.
That naive geography positioning reasoning is far from reality. From that point of view Belorussia is more valuable.
That "Mystery of Russian Soul" lies among the lines of "Kiev - mother of Russian cities" (term of 12th century Primary Chronicle) and too many other historical facts. Like Wild Steppe (south of Ukraine) were fought for and liberated from Crimean Khanate by Russian Army. Modern Kherson, Nikolayev, Sevastopol, and Ekaterinoslav(Dnipro/Dnepropetrovsk), were established by Gregory Potemkin (Empress Catherine times) and populated by peasants from Russian heartlands - Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov, etc.
All that is well known and well remembered facts by Russian public. So we should not expect that Russian people will be so against all that. If in doubt then see the above.
These nationalistic narratives are means, not causes. Russia wants to control Ukraine, so they teach these narratives to create public support. It's done in many places about many things. You can see people on HN repeating them about their countries.
There is a Wendover Productions video on YouTube that describes "Russia's Geography Problem" and then this whole thing mostly clicks. It is all geopolitics to them.
I wouldn’t use the word desperate. This campaign seems to have been planned out over a decade or more and carefully timed if you ask me. Observe how the new German leadership can’t bring itself to block SWIFT access in winter after recently turning off nuclear power capacity, because it will cause an energy crisis. That isn’t a coincidence. Neither I think is that all this happened while it is Russia’s turn chairing the UN security council.
The fact is that democratic countries with leaders elected yesterday are at a disadvantage to these perpetual dictators with low accountability and strong convictions.
Putin is a snake. I would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world. He absolutely cannot be trusted, and his agenda really does involve damaging and weakening other sovereign nations seemingly for the sake of it.
For one, Putin seems to want to reassemble the USSR as a vanity project. Further, this all started (years ago) when the Ukrainians removed out their Moscow friendly president. Putin doesn't like reminders that months of sustained protests can really effect change and remove leaders, especially so close to Russia.
Crimea is the only "warm water" port that Russia has access to to gain access for the end and the Atlantic.
The Ukraine has a ton of farmland. This may be more valuable soon because China imports a ton of food and if you're planning on a Sino-Russo alliance cut off from western powers, food is important.
Similarly, it shares a lot of the fresh water sources with the rest of Europe. I don't know if it's something he can attempt to monopolize, but controlling water into the region is at least as good as natural gas, and less seasonal with less ability to diversify like to green energy.
The USSR located some specialty heavy industry in Ukraine. If it still exists, it might be valuable. I read, but can not confirm, that it was part of the strategic goal of the USSR to make sure each constituent state wasn't self sufficient to encourage national unity. But that could just be BS. Reasoning like that is almost certainly why Crimea was given to the Ukraine.
It's not your fault. They've been peddling this, as well as conquering Constantinople for the same reason, since the time of Peter the Great.
Its straight out of Imperial Russia's propaganda book. Kind of proof that Russia since ~1600 has always been the same country, just with a different coat of paint (the one between 1917 and 1991 happening to be red paint).
You're wrong about Crimea ( Novorosiisk), but mostly correct about the rest. Ukraine has a lot of specialised heavy industry - tank, engine, ship, aircraft building. Important parts of it are needed by the Russians, which is why there were many joint programmes before 2014 - Russian ships used Ukrainian produced turbines and engines, there was collaboration on new cargo aircraft, etc.
I didn't mean the government of the USSR. I meant the geographic reach.
But you contend that Putin doesn't want the western tip of Ukraine, but instead to reclaim Finland, Alaska and parts of Poland? Because that's the only difference in his territorial ambitions.
For Russians, this is geopolitical question.
What I mean, they feel themselves imperfect, if size of their country does not correspond with their weight in world.
Very similar to what WW1 and WW2 causes.
- In approx 1900, Germany becomes one country (before, there where many small principalities, and no central power lasts long).
So appear new country, powerful country, and they look on world and see colonial system, where nearly ALL powerful countries has colonies.
I mean whole world where divided between top countries.
First, Germany tried to reach an agreement with top countries, to cut some colonies from other countries and assign to Germany, but without fast success, because pre WW1 agreements system where extremely sophisticated, and they just cannot rebuild this system fast.
Than German powers conclude, that they could faster got wanted if make war, that's all.
To be more precise, Russia is large, but economically, it's position is worst in world, except Mongolia.
- Russia have longest in world size of land borders, near no borders on mountains, very little number of possible sea ports; extremely large territory is just ice, nothing could grow there.
- Russia really have reliable access to sea only in few places - Baltic, Black sea/Azov, and on Pacific, this is extremely little, for so large number of citizens (approx half of US).
BTW, current Russia situation is much better, than for example 200 years ago, because that time they had neighbors, who demand very high fees for access to sea.
To solve this, Russians occupied their neighbors - 300-200 years ago, Russians near constantly invade neighbors and assimilate them into their empire, so now they have another problem, google Belfast.
Now, Russians trying to work less crude, they trying to place puppet governments in all neighbors countries.
Ukraine have borders with three EU countries, and is one of the largest counties on Black sea, so Ukraine is extremely interest for logistics.
And unfortunately, current Ukraine don't have effective government system, as I said on another comment, current Ukraine officials are extremely corrupted and extremely illiterate.
So Russians concluded, that Ukraine could be easy target for occupation and/or to place puppet government, and prepared for invasion and invade.
"What does Ukraine really have, that Putin so desperately wants? "
It's not 'what it has' it's 'what it is'.
Putin views the Ukraine as 'part of Russia' - that's it.
I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
Imagine if Mexico invaded Texas in 1950 and 'won'. A lot of Americans would want to 'take it back'.
Now I don't believe that this analogy is real in terms of the Ukraine situation (Imagine if those Mexicans wanted to be Mexicans and definitely did not want to be part of the USA...), but you can see how Putin + Co. propaganda would like you to see it.
I'm wary that there will be much of an insurgency in Ukraine - it's big, open, spread out, there are few places to hide.
Not a very good analogy. No western country ever invaded Ukraine. When the Soviet Union collapsed Ukraine was granted its independence without a shot being fired.
A better analogy would be Australia and Canada. Both were part of Great Britain and both became independent after the British Empire collapsed.
Yes, but that doesn't in any way change the fact that they aren't really independent if an official appointed by a foreign power can dismiss and appoint cabinet ministers at will.
Yes, but this quote leaves out the distinction they made. The GP goes on to note the difference caused by who the people in the region support. In real life, as far as I can tell, most people in that region ended up supporting independence or later accession to the US, which seems slightly more similar to the more complex Ukraine situation in the GP comment than Mexico simply wanting Texas back.
> The internet and computing is certainly a big shift, but from a visible changes to the world perspective I think 2022 is more alike 1922 than 1922 was alike 1822.
Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world.
Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
Welp, I do think that technological progress has been growing at a logarithmic rate, and it's probably keep growing at that pace...
I think the one point in which the author was super correct is, when he says that the progress will be made on technology, rather than the "emotion that arises between a man and a maid" - as I understand it, emotional intelligence - , which will remain stagnant.
They had radio and video cameras in 1922, I don't think facetime would be all that shocking. 1822 had neither telephone nor electric light. Steam trains were just getting started; by 1922 they were running regular service at over 100 mph.
Evidently its debatable which century saw more change, from sailboats to Titanic, or gunpowder rockets to Apollo... certainly there have always been cynics and dreamers...
edit: GPS would be pretty shocking to either, I expect
> Lolwat? Handheld devices that have the power to process millions of calculations a sec, to record Ultra HD videos, to establish a video conference instantaniously with anyone in the whole world.
These are a different in quality more so than a different in kind. In 1922 you could already talk to someone 100s of miles away via the telephone. In 1822 you couldn't. And getting there was going to take weeks. So you basically couldn't talk to people long distance unless you were rich or important.
> Thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly. Space missions that are already flying past the limits of our galaxy.
Means rather than an end here. Google Maps is neat and convenient, but again, you _could_ use paper maps for much of what people use google maps for. And large paper mapping schemes (e.g. ordnance survey maps in countries of the british empire) were carried out in the 19th century and WW1. Communications could also be done, albeit more expensively. Space missions are still currently in the scientific curiosity stage, rather than impacting people's lives, but who knows maybe commercial near earth space missions end up being the one people get to to talk about for 2022-2122.
> Bio-mechanical organs, giving the crippled back the ability to walk, the blind the ability to see, the deaf to hear.
These are technically more accomplished achievements for sure, but I'm not sure they have the same sort of societal impacts as initiatives against cholera and tubercolosis of the late 19th century. Vaccination is probably the 20th century achievement to call out here.
The keyword here is “visible”; for most of these things, though the change is real, it is also easily missed, with the exception of, as you say, thousands of satellites that orbit the earth constantly (space missions are not however already flying past the limits of our galaxy, they’re just about reaching the heliopause; even just leaving the plane of the Galaxy is 200,000 times further than that, while leaving the rim of the Galaxy is about 12 million times further).
Video conferencing worldwide? If you draw attention to it, I suspect it would’ve surprised 1922 people that anyone richer than a literal subsistence farmer would also have a device of their own for the other end of the call, but the existence of the technology itself would not be surprising.
For visible changes between 1922 and 2022? New materials, new lighting, new fashion, drones, the public acceptability of same-sex relationships, race relations (in particular attitudes to those of pre-Colombian, African, and Chinese descent), and possibly also visible might be the absence of disfiguring illnesses that we have now vaccinated against.
But those are likely less than the changes from 1822 to 1922.
(The Blue Marble, or the photos of astronauts walking on the moon… I don’t know if those would’ve been shocking or not. Jules Verne died in 1905).
Yeah, I remember that. That was a day to remember, a victory for the open source. The explosion in forks across many other git services, was so widespread and loud that github (apparently under pressure from google) had to pull back on their decision to shut it down.
Not really. The thing that makes youtube-dl useful is that it has one large dedicated community that can find ways to circumvent the changes youtube adds to prevent scraping. Basically, every few months or so youtube-dl becomes useless, and a huge distributed team has to kick in and find a way around it. When one of them does, they commit the change to one centralized place and it gets disbursed to everyone.
Without one centralized place, propagation of patches would take a lot longer, and youtube-dl would spend a larger percentage of time not working for most people. This is something the anti-piracy folks would be quite OK with, as it would lead to attrition among users even if not total eradication.
I assume google cares about people who block ads because a month or so ago, google figured out how to show ads even though I am using a content blocker on iOS and macOS.
I don't think so. Disabling ads on youtube requires injecting JavaScript. It's not forbidden in manifest v3 (and it would be absurd to forbid it, as 99% extensions exist because of this).
For reference: I don't see ads on youtube using hand-crafted JS which was inspired by uBlock origin, so I think that uBlock origin should work as well.
Well duh obviously it exists, arent you reading it? Therefore it falls in the realm of existence
lol jk, im just fucking around with the semantics of words here. However I have to admit, this thought about existence or truthfulness of concepts or statements being spitted out by unsentient machines that mix and match infinite "real" patterns, has me quite worried...
Sometimes I find myself reading at a whole discussion thread, and I get the uncomfortable sensation that everything I've been reading is a bunch of bots training each other's models...
Not quite when the concepts are complex enough, all right, it is easy to spot pointless mouthfuls deviations of a main subject being discussed, but what about, for example, the user reviews on an amazon product? Or a youtube's vid comment section? Or whatever shit you consume from the internet.
I'm by no means any expert in the subject, and current state of the art of the Turing test, but I've seen just enough GPT-3 whichcraft to start being totally skeptical about anything I see online.
sorry for the huge rant, but i took a great effort to make it sound like its coming from a real person XD
also, to @turtlesoup: Thank you, that was wonderful. I hope you enjoy this cup of coffee too :-)
i am so confused, whats the reason behind this little event handler?