>There is a missing piece for me here. A magic 'send my PC browser tab to this other PC connected to the TV' button.
I use an NVIDIA shield on a dumb TV with firefox sideloaded (ad blockers, ect) for 95% of my streaming. You can import your cookies or other preferences or simply browse for content directly.
Probably the media that shows the UK locking up old ladies and people in wheelchairs for speaking out publicly against ongoing UK support for genocide (among other "speech offenses").
> “The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,” the High Commissioner said. “As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.”
>
> Since the UK Government’s ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests.
So it seems you're also missing important context when you wave the whole thing away because "it's a proscribed organisation" - that proscription is in fact another example of government overreach.
That doesn't change the context. A different justification doesn't change the practical effect. The curtailing of speech is discussed as problematic by many of the residents openly. I certainly have had an earful touring across the entirety of the isles.
Accessed my first Atari 8-bit BBS as a kid in 1985 with my Atari 800 and 300 baud modem, lucky to upgrade to an Atari 130 XE soon after (also 8-bit). It was a whole different world.
Aside from the glacially slow connection speed, virtually every BBS back then was single line. This meant constant busy signals and endless redialing (pulse dialing, not touch tone!) in an attempt to get through and connect. Daily login time to each BBS was limited so that others could get on. Most BBSs used an upload to download ratio for files/warez in order to block leechers. Phone calls were very expensive back then too! Even calling numbers within your area code (which was subdivided into sections with different rates) carried a per minute charge. The more selective boards required referrals and/or references to have your account accepted.
It was the Wild West back then and truly a great time.
I can still remember learning my first "real" programming language (Turbo Pascal[1]) in 1990, entirely out of a book! It took much longer to figure things out entirely on my own when I was stuck on something, but once I figured it out and overcame it I'd spent enough time working through it to gain a thorough understanding of whatever the problem was. Going through this process eventually gave me a much greater understanding of programming as a whole and made it much easier to pick up new languages. I fear this will be lost on a generation growing up with LLMs.
Shooting at flying things in densely populated areas is generally a bad idea because when you miss, whatever ammunition you used falls on somebody on the ground. And if you hit, the debris falls on someone on the ground.
If you fly the drone 100m up in the air it will block commercial flying due to risk of collision but birdshot can’t reach it.
Even if you manage to hit it at that range there just isn’t enough kinetic power left to really do any damage.
For example here is a Finnish journalist being shot at 70m with birdshot. https://youtu.be/WJgzzrcSmNM?t=124 note that the shot did hit them but none managed to go trough the cardboard and normal civilian clothes were enough protection for other parts of the body.
Basically outside of drones that are trying to hit you (suicide fpv drones) birdshot is kinda useless as there isn't really any reason to fly them so close that they would be in effective range.
Lest anyone misinterpret your statement, shotguns are still dangerous at long range:
No. 7 1/2 shot carries, and is dangerous to humans, for 125
yards; No. 6 shot is dangerous for 250 yards; 3 and 4 shot are dangerous
for 300 yards and BB shot is dangerous for 450 yards.
The heavy shot used for geese is dangerous for 1,400 yards --
almost a mile.
The spread will mean you likely won't hit what you are aiming at, but it is still dangerous.
This poses a fun dilemma: the belief that Russia deliberately targets civilians (which is likely correct) almost requires us to also believe that the Russian army fields precision weaponry allowing deliberately targeting things (of which the evidence is scarce).
That's easy. Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians.
>of which the evidence is scarce
Is it?
Have a look at this one, where Russia hit Ukrainian MLRSes in a night strike.[0] Western media reported that as inhuman and savage Russians destroying a shopping mall.[1] The mall indeed suffered but only because the Ukrainians parked MLRSes next to it. Ironically the Ukraine itself provided the evidence of that by distributing video where they talk about the mall but incidentally show destroyed MLRS (the other one got evaporated).[2]
Re: Russia deliberately targets civilians, but being totally inept, misses and hits different civilians. -- Yep, absolutely, but this is unfalsifiable I guess. I mean, maybe they're targeting hostile aliens from space, but being inept, [...]
Re: Why do you think that? -- I extrapolate from Putin's allies really. Hamas specifically (and very vocally / proudly) targets civilians, Hezbollah targets civilians, Iran and Houthis routinely fire ballistic missiles at residential areas. (I'm only listing things I've actually witnessed, as a noncombatant.)
So intuitively they're all in the same bucket. I'll be happy to be completely wrong about Russia in this regard.
Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod (Russia) that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches") after Ukrainian MLRS strike at the city: https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688
Here is the Ukraine targeting the same high-rise apartment building in Kazan with multiple drones: https://t.me/readovkanews/91042
I'd say it's a fine example of whataboutism in an argument. The fact that other people in history have committed atrocities does not mean it's hunky dory to Russia to murder people.
The discussion was on whether Russia targets civilians or not. That is not really a function of whether Ukraine does.
If you want to drag Russia vs Ukraine in, obviously Russia is hugely worse as the aggressor with their rapes and torture chambers and the like. I'm not Ukrainian or Russian and I don't think I've seen a clearer good vs evil war in my lifetime.
>That is not really a function of whether Ukraine does
It's a function of what you call what the Ukraine does. If you use a report of an isolated episode to justify the claim that "Russia deliberately targets civilians" accompanying all Western reporting on Russian strikes, than you surely must accept the statement that "Ukrainian soldiers have swastika tatoos"[0]. Do you?
>with their rapes and torture chambers and the like
You forgot the infants raped with teaspoons and Viagra kits distributed to Russian soldiers, all according to Ukrainian sources and Western politicians and media. Having said that, I'm sure war crimes happen just like in any war.
>I don't think I've seen a clearer good vs evil war in my lifetime
That's exactly what Western media wants you to think. Russian state media wants Russians think the same.
>I extrapolate from Putin's allies really. ... they're all in the same bucket
Hamas, Hezbolla or Houthis are hardly Russian allies. Iran isn't fighting on the Russian side like North Korea did, but I guess you can call them an ally of sorts.
Here is a bit about Israel, which supports the Ukraine:
Two of the sources told the outlets that in the first few weeks of the war, the IDF allowed up to 15 or 20 civilian deaths for every low-ranking Hamas militant assassinated.
That number could increase to up to more than 100 civilians if the IDF were targeting a single senior Hamas official, the sources said.
"There was a completely permissive policy regarding the casualties of operations," one source said, according to the report. "A policy so permissive that in my opinion it had an element of revenge." [0]
Assuming that's true, should we extrapolate that too?
Iran, well, we agree: they're very much aligned politically, seem to have shared weapon programs (rumor has it, Iran's Shahed drone == RF's Geran' drone).
Having said all that, I now realize that I must've misused the word ally to mean political sympathizer, my bad. I meant "closely aligned" more than anything, like when the Russian media says "Anglo-saxons" to describe the political bloc.
Re: Assuming that's true, should we extrapolate that too? -- Honestly, maybe? I don't have an opinion, much less an educated one.
The article says it didn't happen, just that maybe some people disembarked.
>The meeting where Putin says they have longstanding ties with Hamas
That's not exactly what he said: "Russia’s stable, long-term relationships with the Palestinian people, their representatives and various organizations". If you deal with Palestine you have to deal with Hamas. Russia has stable, long-term relationship with Israel too.
>I meant "closely aligned" more than anything
To some degree, what degree is that is debatable. It's more like the enemy of my enemy (the US) thing if you ask my opinion.
>rumor has it, Iran's Shahed drone == RF's Geran' drone
Russia used to import Shahed drones, than organized their production domestically with Iranian help, improved the design, greatly scaled the production, created a decoy version and a jet-powered version.
>Honestly, maybe? I don't have an opinion, much less an educated one.
I use an NVIDIA shield on a dumb TV with firefox sideloaded (ad blockers, ect) for 95% of my streaming. You can import your cookies or other preferences or simply browse for content directly.
reply