Yeah, I would always pick the law over the union. I once had an employer try to fuck me over the pettiest thing. they had incorrectly, probably deliberately, terminated my contract so that I was ineligible for unemployment benefits. They don’t pay that benefit and it takes them literally 5 minutes to fix it, so it pretty much would cost them nothing to make that change. But it meant the world for me because that would’ve been the only way for me to put food on the table. I argued with them for days and the entire time they’re gaslighting me with “You don’t know what you’re talking about, we did everything right. Nothing is wrong.” Eventually I got fed up. I told them “I don’t need to deal with this shit. Give me the official reason why you can’t change the reason for me termination. I’ll forward it to the labour office and you can deal with them.” literally the next thing they said was “fine, we’ll fix it.” and 5 minutes later it was done.

I imagine a union would’ve also helped me in that scenario, but I enjoyed the safety of knowing I could stick the law in their face and tell them to eat shit. My opinion is that worker unions are great but labor laws are even better.

Yeah. You don’t need to look far (to lemmy.ml) to find people who argue that Russia is perfectly justified in not respecting the ceasefire. Clearly we won’t be changing the mind of those people because to them anything Ukraine related (from the west) is 100% propaganda which means Macron stating the obvious is also just “propaganda” to them. But for people who aren’t keeping up with the news it’s useful to remind them that the world doesn’t believe the tankie sauce certain people seem to think is the truth.

Because it’s largely irrelevant? If someone says “This is the best lock you can use on your front door” and someone else replies “not if you leave the key in the lock” do you think that’s a important thing to mention? No lock is safe if you leave the key in the lock. Maybe it’s important to remind people that you shouldn’t leave your key in the lock, but that statement says nothing about the security of the lock.

Similarly maybe it’s important to remind people that their phones might already be rooted, but that statement says nothing about whether Signal is good or bad from a security point of view.

Their losses are clearly significant enough to bring a foreign army (North Koreans) to replenish their forces. Maybe not 50% but I don’t think it’s that far off.

Do you not know history? That is the exact kind of attitude that doomed the league of nations. The UN exists to manage international affairs. If you start kicking out members or start demanding specific resolutions you can’t manage international affairs because countries will say “fuck your org, I’ll do my own thing”.

You give us 50% of your natural resources and we’ll give you eggs (no guarantees on getting the eggs though).

So why isn’t Russia taking responsibilities for the atrocities and illegal occupations done by the USSR? It’s as if it’s not just a name change.

Also what agreement do you think gives Russia that guarantee? There’s no paper that says NATO won’t expand east.

Okay. This is a bit more nuanced and what I gave was my opinion, as in they’re not the successor. They are the successor in some cases, but whether they’re actually the successor or not depends on which option is beneficial to Russia. When it comes to NATO Russia likes to act like it’s the successor, but when it comes to reparations for the atrocities the USSR committed that’s when Russia says they’re not actually the successor to the USSR and can’t be responsible for the atrocities committed by the USSR. I’m my eyes you can’t have it both ways and as such I’m just taking cues from the Russian playbook. Whatever guarantees were given they were given to the USSR and not Russia, especially when those guarantees were never on paper.

In case anyone is thinking of taking this troll seriously, there is no treaty that prevents NATO from expanding east. There was something like it between NATO and the USSR but Russia officially is not the successor to USSR so they have no claim to that guarantee. It’s all Russian propaganda.

Nuclear power has its own mining and rare material problems, in the form of uranium. You have to dig into the earth for it, and then after you use it, poison part of the planet forever. We still dont know what to do with all the nuclear waste we alrwady made.

Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, is generally safer to use and would produce less waste that is also less radioactive and can become safe in a reasonable timeframe (few centuries compared to few hundred/thousand? centuries). Historically the main issue with Thorium has been that it’s not as sexy as uranium because you can’t make nuclear weapons out of thorium.

I can’t wait for a future where the US has fixed its problems. Trump is just a symptom of a deeper issue within the US and when Trump is gone someone else will take his place and it’ll probably get worse.

I think it might have more to do with the fact that our perception of morality changes with societal norms. People in the 19th century probably looked at Roman gay sex as something bad and vulgar because gays were bad. Now we view Roman gay sex in a positive light.

Were the 19th century people bad people because they viewed homosexuality as something bad? Or do we consider them bad just because we no longer see homosexuality as something bad? What if 200 years from now homosexuality is considered bad again, do the 19th century people become good?

Maybe we shouldn’t apply our current moral values to people who lived at a different time with different moral values?

Someone probably should the governmental stick up their ass for this. I’m pretty sure all the parts that end up in Russian arsenal have export restrictions and should, in theory, have strict oversight. You can’t just export into another country and forget about it. If those parts want to be to be exported into another country that information should come back to the seller(or the government agency, don’t really remember the specifics) who then have to give clearance for that and any future exports. But you can’t keep track of under the table deals. Hopefully this gets investigated and justice is served but I don’t have much faith.

They were barely given any assurances. They were given a pinky promise to be independent, pinky promise to not get nuked and UNSC provided assistance ONLY IF nuclear weapons are used against them.

The TLDR: Don’t criticize China, you’re wrong anyway.

I don’t think you have an idea of how much of an information bubble Russia is in? In case you haven’t noticed the “western” internet speaks almost universally English. Unless you’re in some niche national community you’re unlikely to see any other language. We’re speaking English right now and that’s not my first language. Last time I checked something like 1 in 20 Russians understand English and even less can actually speak it. The vast majority of the Russian population, despite having near full access to the internet, are locked in the Russian sphere of information. And their primary search tool, Yandex, is majority owned by the oligarchs.

When you live in Russia you really have to go out of your way to escape the Russian propaganda. The vast majority of people in any country would never go to such lengths to get an broader view of a subject. Most probably wouldn’t even understand they need a broader view than what their regular media feeds them.

Feel free to correct me but nobody got a majority so 2 of the 3 largest coalitions would have to come to an agreement to get a majority. Macrons coalition could align with the left and Macron could appoint a prime minister without the opposition blocking it. So how exactly are Macrons hands tied? Does he have no control over the coalition he himself created?

Maybe she was taught the “when mommy and daddy really love each other” way of getting pregnant.

At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn’t get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn’t let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn’t be “well Russia did it first”. Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.

The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.

Go learn history. This “we must show them” mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn’t kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.

The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.