By You got 14 bricks right there? Go To PostCorn pop looking on with a smile on his face.
Joe collecting all the black infinity stones. Racism is dead now.
Boris always looks like a mad scientist's failed experiment.
He can't seem to do anything like a regular person - even just walking from A to B.
He can't seem to do anything like a regular person - even just walking from A to B.
(Reuters) - Russia has made a “massive strategic blunder” as Finland and Sweden look poised to join NATO as early as the summer, The Times reported on Monday, citing officials..
By Lunatic Go To PostI hope not. I'll believe it when I see it. That would be WWIII if they do.ok
By Lunatic Go To PostI hope not. I'll believe it when I see it. That would be WWIII if they do.Lol, jumping the gun much?
By Lunatic Go To PostI hope not. I'll believe it when I see it. That would be WWIII if they do.Nah, good chance they actually join NATO as a consequence of what Putin pulled in Ukraine.
By Lunatic Go To PostI hope not. I'll believe it when I see it. That would be WWIII if they do.they killing you but I can see it tbh
wouldn't be surprised if countries start leaving NATO too... these lines in the sand aren't gonna be worth much anymore if things continue as is
Tbh we should really just cede all territorial sovereignty to the Russians, appeasement always works especially if it’ll stop WWIII. Best course of action Sweden and Finland can get fucked
By DY_nasty Go To Postwouldn't be surprised if countries start leaving NATO too
By Perfect Blue Go To PostTbh we should really just cede all territorial sovereignty to the Russians, appeasement always works especially if it’ll stop WWIII. Best course of action Sweden and Finland can get fucked
I don't think appeasement is what we're suggesting at all, but people should at minimum consider what a perceived threat looks like before acting shocked at the response. I'd rather see one fire put out before inviting another... By summer, Kyiv could be surrounded again for all we know.
And the consistent response has been to back away anyways. If things spill into Romania, do we honestly think its all in?
Edit: I think it's kinda clear some of us more than others acknowledge how NATO plays favorites - and that if it ever becomes clear that the umbrella isn't for everyone and that it stops becoming beneficial for certain other countries, it will lead to it splintering *quickly*. Then the real shit storm starts.
That's the worst case scenario that people should be wary of.
And the consistent response has been to back away anyways. If things spill into Romania, do we honestly think its all in?
Edit: I think it's kinda clear some of us more than others acknowledge how NATO plays favorites - and that if it ever becomes clear that the umbrella isn't for everyone and that it stops becoming beneficial for certain other countries, it will lead to it splintering *quickly*. Then the real shit storm starts.
That's the worst case scenario that people should be wary of.
By DY_nasty Go To PostI don't think appeasement is what we're suggesting at all, but people should at minimum consider what a perceived threat looks like before acting shocked at the response. I'd rather see one fire put out before inviting another… By summer, Kyiv could be surrounded again for all we know.I think the people of these countries have indeed been considering perceived threats for decades now. They know how it is to be living next to Russia. There wouldn’t be such a mad dash now to join NATO if the threat wasn’t as real as it’s ever been to these countries bordering Russia, no? Even the expansion of NATO isn’t something that occurred in a vacuum just for the fun of it.
And the consistent response has been to back away anyways. If things spill into Romania, do we honestly think its all in?
Russia has tested Swedish airspace/borders for years so no surprise both them and Finland want to join now.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostI think the people of these countries have indeed been considering perceived threats for decades now. They know how it is to be living next to Russia. There wouldn’t be such a mad dash now to join NATO if the threat wasn’t as real as it’s ever been to these countries bordering Russia, no? Even the expansion of NATO isn’t something that occurred in a vacuum just for the fun of it.Kinda included this in the edit, but the idea that NATO will pick and choose historically when to give a fuck has always been a problem.
Extending the border instead of fortifying the existing one is a bad answer at this point. There was a clear window to do all the rah rah stuff people are talking about now and it came and went. If there's ever an idea that me, dy, is a pacifist then clearly something is wrong 😂
Understanding the reasons it came and went is another reason why some think NATO ain't the shining bastion it sells itself as. If and when shit gets hot, there has to be literally zero chance countries leave. And just a few months ago, getting countries to simply meet military growth demands was heresy lol. Just because you send some guns now, it doesn't mean you're invested.
By DY_nasty Go To PostKinda included this in the edit, but the idea that NATO will pick and choose historically when to give a fuck has always been a problem.Oh yeah I’m not disagreeing with any of this. NATO bombed civilians in Serbia on two separate occasions I’m not exactly the biggest fan of them myself, but I do see the rationale for countries wanting to join in particular during times of conflict happening near their borders. I just disagree that it will cause WWIII and if anything, your points kind of reinforce that argument if we accept NATO as someone who picks and chooses when to intervene, so then it can’t really be seen as much of a threat to Russia if they are so ineffectual.
Extending the border instead of fortifying the existing one is a bad answer at this point. There was a clear window to do all the rah rah stuff people are talking about now and it came and went. If there's ever an idea that me, dy, is a pacifist then clearly something is wrong 😂
Understanding the reasons it came and went is another reason why some think NATO ain't the shining bastion it sells itself as. If and when shit gets hot, there has to be literally zero chance countries leave. And just a few months ago, getting countries to simply meet military growth demands was heresy lol. Just because you send some guns now, it doesn't mean you're invested.
I think what you’re describing is pretty much a result of one of the major issues of modern liberal democracy, at least since the fall of the USSR, in that isn’t well equipped to deal with long term strategic problems unless there’s already a huge bi-partisan consensus and an overall consensus between states. I’m sure there’s many reasons for this like that bi-partisan consensus crumbling and the threat being seen as abstract and far off, among many others. As well as how many states are still comfortable ceding sovereignty to join in a defense alliance, which is an entirely large discussion on its own.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostOh yeah I’m not disagreeing with any of this. NATO bombed civilians in Serbia on two separate occasions I’m not exactly the biggest fan of them myself, but I do see the rationale for countries wanting to join in particular during times of conflict happening near their borders. I just disagree that it will cause WWIII and if anything, your points kind of reinforce that argument if we accept NATO as someone who picks and chooses when to intervene, so then it can’t really be seen as much of a threat to Russia if they are so ineffectual.
I think what you’re describing is pretty much a result of one of the major issues of modern liberal democracy, at least since the fall of the USSR, in that isn’t well equipped to deal with long term strategic problems unless there’s already a huge bi-partisan consensus and an overall consensus between states. I’m sure there’s many reasons for this like that bi-partisan consensus crumbling and the threat being seen as abstract and far off, among many others. As well as how many states are still comfortable ceding sovereignty to join in a defense alliance, which is an entirely large discussion on its own.
the pick-and-choose is right. After Turkey shot down that Russian jet, NATO was like "Article 5? What Article 5? You're clearly on your own if Russia attacks" followed by NATO allies pulling all their AD out of the country and then REEEEEEEing about sanctions and kicking them out of NATO.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostOh yeah I’m not disagreeing with any of this. NATO bombed civilians in Serbia on two separate occasions I’m not exactly the biggest fan of them myself, but I do see the rationale for countries wanting to join in particular during times of conflict happening near their borders. I just disagree that it will cause WWIII and if anything, your points kind of reinforce that argument if we accept NATO as someone who picks and chooses when to intervene, so then it can’t really be seen as much of a threat to Russia if they are so ineffectual.Can't disagree with most of this. I'm just more of thinking its the same discussion really.
I think what you’re describing is pretty much a result of one of the major issues of modern liberal democracy, at least since the fall of the USSR, in that isn’t well equipped to deal with long term strategic problems unless there’s already a huge bi-partisan consensus and an overall consensus between states. I’m sure there’s many reasons for this like that bi-partisan consensus crumbling and the threat being seen as abstract and far off, among many others. As well as how many states are still comfortable ceding sovereignty to join in a defense alliance, which is an entirely large discussion on its own.
I genuinely don't even like to talk about NATO in any pro-humanitarian context because I will tilt guaranteed too. They're way too good at watching people die and playing favorites. As a strategic affect tho? Their reactionary playbook the last 15 years is long past due on getting played in such a way.
By DY_nasty Go To PostCan't disagree with most of this. I'm just more of thinking its the same discussion really.Yeah I’m hesitant to really describe any actions by states in general as “humanitarian” when stuff only happens if it aligns with their own interests.
I genuinely don't even like to talk about NATO in any pro-humanitarian context because I will tilt guaranteed too. They're way too good at watching people die and playing favorites. As a strategic affect tho? Their reactionary playbook the last 15 years is long past due on getting played in such a way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/travel/europe-trains.html
How civilized and I dare to dream /cc PB signal
Long-term though, flying by plane will only get more and more expensive simple due to the nature of the business and the simple fact that fuel costs will keep steadily rising.
How civilized and I dare to dream /cc PB signal
Some long-distance journeys with multiple stops are still much cheaper by plane than by train.Ah, that explains it. Without subsidies those cheaper flights is not due to actual economics lol
The fact remains that, despite the European Union’s support for rail, the bloc’s governments continue to grant enormous subsidies to airlines — in the form of bailout packages as well as low taxes on jet fuel — although that could change soon.
Long-term though, flying by plane will only get more and more expensive simple due to the nature of the business and the simple fact that fuel costs will keep steadily rising.
By Laboured Go To PostThe Tory 2.0 partyA friend of mine who's working with the unions and part of a fang of the Labour party said to me that they might be expelled by Starmer et al as they were considered too 'leftist' 😆
By reilo Go To Posthttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/05/travel/europe-trains.htmlIt's basically a consensus in the transit industry, amongst policymakers, and the airline industry itself, that the way airlines are currently structured is incredibly inefficient and unsustainable. A crazy high percentage of airlines are unprofitable and remain dependent on government subsidies to stay afloat, let alone succeed. These subsidies are, yeah, indeed what causes cheap tickets in places like Europe. Low cost carriers especially just straight up would not be able to exist without government subsidies.
How civilized and I dare to dream /cc PB signal
Ah, that explains it. Without subsidies those cheaper flights is not due to actual economics lol
Long-term though, flying by plane will only get more and more expensive simple due to the nature of the business and the simple fact that fuel costs will keep steadily rising.
Some sort of correction or re-structuring of the airline industry is in order but as how that would look like is something I haven't really looked into or thought much about. Maybe flying on airplanes will go back to being for the rich only like in the "golden age of flying" or some level of nationalization, either routes or whole airlines, is in order. A lot of countries already operate national airlines (I don't believe the US has one) and I'm interested in seeing the economics and how possible it is for each country to have one or two airlines only, funded via these subsidies that end up going to private corporations instead. I think with how inter-connected the world is becoming, there's going to be more talk about airplanes as public transit like how we look at buses. Like you said the cost of flying is just going to keep going up and the end game surely can't be even more generous subsidies to keep these companies afloat.
Transit subsidies in general are a very complex topic that we could spend all day talking about. How to balance sustainability, equal access, environmental factors, etc are just a few aspects that go into building transit projects. People like to tout China's HSR as an example of successful transit projects but something like 80% of their HSR lines are not just grossly in debt but also lack ridership. A lot of it ends up looking like vanity projects for local governments and don't really make economic or productive sense. Last I checked the cumulative debt for their HSR lines are over 1 trillion. They do look cool, though.
For sure on all of that.
For me the biggest "I hate flying" bit is how cumbersome the entire process is: getting to the airport, getting through the airport (TSA, finding your gate, etc), the plane layout itself (I'm 6'4 and I get fucked on coach seats), and how anti-consumer it all seems. Trains are more comfortable, more convenient, easier to get to, easier to be on, and less headache to deal with overall.
But the cherry on top? These giant airlines have been doing buyback programs to push more into their shareholder pockets and when shit hits the fan like the pandemic they're back to asking governments for more bailouts. It's all corrupt.
My hope with HSR at least is that outside of maintenance the cost to actually run a train on elecricity should be a relative fixed (or at least slow growing cost) as nations figure out their energy policies longterm. All of that requires foresight though, and, well, welp.
For me the biggest "I hate flying" bit is how cumbersome the entire process is: getting to the airport, getting through the airport (TSA, finding your gate, etc), the plane layout itself (I'm 6'4 and I get fucked on coach seats), and how anti-consumer it all seems. Trains are more comfortable, more convenient, easier to get to, easier to be on, and less headache to deal with overall.
But the cherry on top? These giant airlines have been doing buyback programs to push more into their shareholder pockets and when shit hits the fan like the pandemic they're back to asking governments for more bailouts. It's all corrupt.
My hope with HSR at least is that outside of maintenance the cost to actually run a train on elecricity should be a relative fixed (or at least slow growing cost) as nations figure out their energy policies longterm. All of that requires foresight though, and, well, welp.
You joke but Hyperloop is progressing really well. I hate that it's associated with Musk because the guy brought it up once in a speech at a conference, smh.
By reilo Go To PostFor sure on all of that.It's so bad, man. The actual act of flying is just so miserable on all levels, really hate it.
For me the biggest "I hate flying" bit is how cumbersome the entire process is: getting to the airport, getting through the airport (TSA, finding your gate, etc), the plane layout itself (I'm 6'4 and I get fucked on coach seats), and how anti-consumer it all seems. Trains are more comfortable, more convenient, easier to get to, easier to be on, and less headache to deal with overall.
But the cherry on top? These giant airlines have been doing buyback programs to push more into their shareholder pockets and when shit hits the fan like the pandemic they're back to asking governments for more bailouts. It's all corrupt.
My hope with HSR at least is that outside of maintenance the cost to actually run a train on elecricity should be a relative fixed (or at least slow growing cost) as nations figure out their energy policies longterm. All of that requires foresight though, and, well, welp.
I fucking hate flying and wish I could have taken a train to the USA instead of flying there. Shit that'll never happen in my lifetime :(
My only long-distance train trip was from Hammond, LA to Chicago, IL. It's about 800 miles and takes about 18 hours each way. Still, I loved the trip. Could get up and walk around. Seats were comfy and spaced out. Could head to the diner cart and chill or swap stories with other passengers. Able to bring endless amounts of luggage with no additional charge, iirc. No real limit on what could be in your luggage, either.
Just superior in every way except actual travel time. But I'd do it 9/10 if I had the choice.
Just superior in every way except actual travel time. But I'd do it 9/10 if I had the choice.
We have the technology to solve the train travel time problem.
We just lack the societal will and political capital.
We just lack the societal will and political capital.
I legit enjoy being on trains, but then I don't do it often
Obvsly doesn't apply to the Underground, or basically any train where you can't sit down
Obvsly doesn't apply to the Underground, or basically any train where you can't sit down
Yeah it goes without saying that I prefer trains as well lol.
Ferry travel is also underrated. Love taking the ferry from the mainland to Toronto Island or the ferries I took in Hong Kong.
Ferry travel is also underrated. Love taking the ferry from the mainland to Toronto Island or the ferries I took in Hong Kong.
By Pedja Go To PostNever been on a trainNo way.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostYeah it goes without saying that I prefer trains as well lol.Hovercraft tho 😎
Ferry travel is also underrated. Love taking the ferry from the mainland to Toronto or the ferries I took in Hong Kong.
Flying is easy maybe because I live on a small island I'm just used to it🤷🏾♂️
Trains are nice though for the scenery.
Trains are nice though for the scenery.
By Pedja Go To PostNever been on a train