What do you mean it’s false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.
If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it’s own to be considered evidence.
Court would consider admissable as “evidence”,
What does that have to do with how a newspaper should write a headline? Since there is no evidence for the wife’s claim (and at least some small evidence against), the news correctly reports it as just her claim.
The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence
Didn’t I just write that in less detail? I guess I should have added “weak” evidence? I thought the word “some” already made it clear it was far from enough evidence.
Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife’s claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn’t have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.
Care to elaborate?
Well, now let’s see what Jimmy Kimmel does. Will he come back toning down his rhetoric or will he start by thoroughly criticizing Kirk and Disney right as he gets back. I don’t think there really is a third option. If he decide to not address this, he will always weigh the consequences of saying something before saying it (even subconsciously). And in that case, he is not worth watching.
I would love to know as well, so I am slowly reading the UNCLOS treaty as I have time. We have no obligation towards US to not sink their ships, but we may have given promises to other parties of UNCLOS not to attack any ships, even those that did not sign.
It’s like if your promise your wife you will be nice to your mother in law. You did not promise anything to your mother in law and she promised nothing to you, but you are still obligated to be nice to her unless your wife agrees to cancel the promise.
So I don’t know if UNCLOS only deals with not sinking member ships or all ships.
Also, touching US ships is historically very dumb thing to do.
It technically may not even be a breach of international law, since the US is one of the few countries that did not ratify UNCLOS, the law that would apply in international waters. The US was evil for a long time and refused to sign anything that would hold them even symbolically accountable. This did not start with Trump. He just went mask off.
Calling for peace talks in this situation is like calling for marriage in couples counseling of a failing relationship, because married couples stay together longer.
Peace talks don’t create peace, they happen when peace becomes desirable because of battlefield and political realities. Arming Ukraine more can shorten the war. Calling for premature talks can only prolong it.
I just finished refining my Jellyfin setup. I use caddy as reverse proxy and use authelia as authentication in front of Jellyfin. This way only users logged in to authelia can access my Jellyfin. And there is an SSO plugin for jellyfin to avoid double login. The tricky part was getting apps to work.
Tailscale now supports buying Mullvad subscription through them and using it with their app. So it solves this issue, although the control you have over your Mullvad tunnel is less and it misses some advanced Mullvad features. Still probably good enough for most people.
I ended up going a different route by buying a VPS and hosting Caddy as reverse proxy. Then I only have my VPS and NAS on tailscale and other devices use the reverse proxy. This allows me to also share links to cloud files or other stuff I host with friends that are not on tailscale.
Targeting civilians is the poster child of war crimes.
You can bomb soldiers. You can bomb soldiers mixed with civilians. You can even bomb civilians making weapons in a factory. But you can’t just starve and bomb civilians for no reason. And you can’t bomb 100 civilians because there is 1 suspected fighter. Has to be proportional.
Again, the issue is that once you burn fossil fuel, you are not turning it into fossil fuel in any meaningful amount of time.
On the other hand, let’s say that a field used for producing plants for biofuel does not capture any carbon at all to simplify. So deforesting an area releases all the carbon a forest held. The difference is that the fossil fuel gives you energy one time, while the field produces it yearly. We need energy yearly. So if you deforest an area for biofuel, you release CO2 from deforestation but all the CO2 released in the future is what was recaptured by the plants. It is one time CO2 release for perpetual energy delivery. If you go with fossil fuels, you will keep burning more and more every year until it is much worse than deforesting an area.
So reforesting can capture CO2 already released, but that only offsets fossil fuels for some period of time. Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated. That is why eliminating fossil fuel use, and quickly, is far more important than protecting forests. Once you burn fossil fuel, you can’t recapture it into fossil fuel and would have to increase fores area permanently to compensate.
the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.
Not really, that’s the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.
Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.
It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.
Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.
I fully agree, it’s just that the operative keyword is eventually, and I don’t expect it to mean soon. Of course they can’t keep this up forever.
The economy, while struggling, is far from collapsing and popular support is almost a non issue. Russia is not drafting. Without a draft, most soldiers joining do so voluntarily, so there is not as much resistance. They have to pay a lot of money to make people sign up to go fight a war and the extra competition for labor (army vs factories) is increasing wages in many categories. The ones most unhappy about the situation are the oligarchs who have to pay for all of it. So unfortunately, betting on Russia somehow collapsing anytime soon is probably a loosing bet.
The more likely bottleneck for Russia is equipment and volunteers for the Army. Their Soviets stockpiles are starting to run low. And, if Russia runs out of people willing to sign up for money, they may be forced to either end the war or start drafting with all the issues that brings.
I base this mostly on Perun YT channel, that has many videos doing in depth analysis of various aspects of the war.
I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t with default settings. Beware of enabling any setting that stores data next to the media like nfo metadata storage, as those could maybe cause conflicts.
Aaah, yes. Everyone’s fault but your politicians.
rotted what brain they had
I want to disagree, but the mental gymnastics people will do to shield their party/candidate from any responsibility is makes it difficult.
Doesn’t it? I am pretty sure they have authority over everyone. US and other non signatories just do not have to hand them over. But if they ever visit a signatory state, they should be arrested.