𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠 @ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

918

Joined

2 yr. ago

I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.

Page 151 has what you're looking for:

The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.

Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted "indiginenisation" iirc it's best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.

They didn't really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.

Sure, here's a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai

The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.

The Ruthenians had been a people for centuries at that point, culturally similar but distinct from the Russians. History did not begin with the Soviet Union, nor are people defined by their borders, especially not in an age of empires and often shifting borders.

That's even further back. I'm talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it's the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.

The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.

Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you're better than just censoring comments.

The only historical revisionist here is you.

I'm tempted to say that although many of these are gaming icons, they're not PC-exclusive so they're not really PC-gaming specific mascot material. Most of these characters are playable on consoles too.

I guess this makes MMORPGs and RTS games prime candidates, like a character from Runescape, Starcraft or WoW. Or perhaps something that shows off modding, like the Thomas the Tank Engine dragon (even if the game isn't PC exclusive).

The Kerbals from KSP could be mascot material too. Dwarf Fortress would be an option too. Or what about a guest from Roller Coaster Tycoon 1/2?

Even sitting on a couch moves your phone more than simply laying on a table. They can use accelerometer data to determine how, if at all, it moved.

They likely have the data to show it didn't move at all. Eg it wasn't on your person.

Iran doesn't even have nukes yet.

International law doesn't put up any of those restrictions. As an illegal occupying force Israel is not allowed to dictate what the "proper" channels are.

I'm not sure a technical solution is feasible, other than dns-blocking these trackers. I suppose lawmakers need to spring into action to make this shit illegal.

Yeah it's Javascript that's the issue that can just take all this data in the client and send it wherever. And that's exactly what's happening.

A lot of those things are also required to render a webpage correctly.

International law doesn't permit the blockading of humanitarian aid. Israel was allowed to board and inspect the vessel, but not block it from entry.

It's a pretty simple concept. Train any kind of model on only "good" data, and it fails to distinguish between that data and bad data.

Take image recognition. Feed it hundreds of images of an orange and ask it to find the orange. After training, it will be very good at finding that orange.

Then add a picture of a Pomeranian dog in there, and watch as the model confidently marks it as an orange.

The model should have been trained on lots of images that don't feature what you want it to output as well, so it knows to distinguish that.

Because the UK (and the US and Russia) agreed to protect Ukrainian sovereignty after Ukraine willingly had the Soviet nuclear arsenal dismantled after the Soviet Union dissolved.

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The other reason is basically the same reason why the UK got involved on the side of Poland in 1939.

Left is always supposed to be off. If not, the UI/UZ designer who made the page messed up.

What I mean by immediate effect is that a switch is supposed to toggle something instantly. Checkboxes are more common in forms, where you expect to submit your choices later.

Switches with more than one option are generally bad, agreed with you there.