boyi @ boyi @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

2

Comments

345

Joined

2 yr. ago

probably as a future deterrent, to avoid major conflict - that they are booming more and more formidable opponent and should not be taken lightly.

TIL if you're not part of EU then you're not in Europe.

I tried to switch to heliboard using multiple languages but its predictions is simply out of league compared to SwiftKey. Reluctantly, I switched back.

how do you think they conducted their state-sponsored hacks then?

yeah, should still be binding until early nextly week, around Tuesday.

What's your intention, really? Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not a native speaker - what I get from your writing - you find it more appropriate to attack/trivialise the UN court ad hominem rather than to consider the real issues of fulfilling the urging humanitarian concerns and the pressing needs of civilians?

Instead of just doing W analysis, why don't you learn SWOT analysis instead. It will water down your bias.

to look at it objectively, if you don't use the service you're simply not part of the demographic targeted by the business employing by that service. That's mutual.

Could be Chechen fringe separatist group. or Ingushetia.

Sadly that's the way things are done when their own survival are at stake. Emotion and moral are not much considered in (their) strategic decision making. People are just pawns on the chessboard.

treating the hostages as merely bargaining chips ignores that they are innocent civilians caught in this idiotic conflict through no fault of their own.

The way I see it if we look at Hamas side - That's the only bargaining chips that Hamas has. They've got nothing else, nil. Hamas is very dependent on the hostages and they know they would receive greater retaliation from the Israeli after the Oct 7 attack if they didn't have any hostages. During the attack, the strategy is basically two prongs - get rid of the soldiers, and get as many hostages alive so we can still survive (yes, some hostages did get killed during the real due to some reasons such as miscommunication during the execution of their operations by separate fringe parties). For that very reason, they try to keep the hostages alive because the moment they lost their hostages without any meaningful peace deal, they are basically done.

It needs a 'base', at every part of the world, which would become a hub for any kind of future deployment. Anyway, it's not just the US, it can be any powerful countries. It just matter of how they do it, nice or not so nice way, direct or indirectly. China does it through business, e.g. silk road.

when it says 100% on the screen, it's actually only 80%

Damn, I need to find out if my not so modern phones display the real or pseudo value.

Tq. that's a very logical explanation. So I assume (current) fast charging battery management are not capable to mitigate the efficiency issues.

I kind of agree with your approach provided that it really works; needs more input on this. Why would we slow charge as proposed in many of the comments, if the current tech embrace fast charging - kind of defeat the purpose. I never leave my phone changed 100% for long, and my anecdotal evidence can prove that works as my phone battery is reaching 6 years. Anyway, there a post somewhere in lemmy suggesting not to change beyond 85%.

Mind will be 6 years at the end this month and still going strong (considering its age). I make sure not to leave it charged at 100% for a long time. I've read through some article in lemmy not ago that not charging it more than 80% will improve its charging life cycle - doing this now.

Because Russia is the sole continuation to USSR according to Alma-Ata Protocol in 1991?

From Just Security and for the subsequent quotes.

“The States of the Commonwealth support Russia’s continuance of the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council, and other international organizations.”

And during those days the members didn't want to bring it up because that was the way they wanted it to happened and now suddenly we question their legitimacy because they have turned to be direct threats to us?

The main factor that influenced how the issue was handled in the UN was the basic policy decision of the other P4 (China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States), including first and foremost the US government, which was that it was in everyone’s interest that the USSR be dissolved peacefully and orderly, which could be accomplished if the other republics agreed among themselves on various matters including the former USSR seat and the veto. The republics of the former USSR, including Ukraine, agreed to Russia maintaining the seat of the USSR including in the Security Council. If they agreed, who would object? On what grounds would anyone have objected to Russia continuing the seat of the USSR in 1991? Maybe to get rid of a veto? If so, it was up to a Member to speak up and make the case.

Members were notified that Russia claimed it was not a “successor State” but a “continuing State” with the support of the former republics of the USSR, and there was no opposition

On Christmas Eve 1991 the Soviet Permanent Representative Yuli Vorontsov came to the UN Secretariat with a box in his hand with a new flag of something called the “Russian Federation” and a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Boris Yeltsin, “President Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” (RSFSR). It said “ the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR), with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, by the Russian Federation.” Note it says “continued” not succession. In the law of succession, he was claiming that parts of the territory of his country had separated, leaving behind the rump which continued the international legal personality of the former larger State, whose name happened to change as well. Same country, just smaller, different borders and a new name and flag. The Russian Federation was the “continuing State” whereas all the bits that spun off were “successor States”—except for, ironically, Ukraine and Belarus which had been deemed as founding members of the Organization in 1945 for reasons not dealt with here. The letter also asked the Secretariat to change the name of the country from “the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” to “Russian Federation” wherever it appeared.

and...

Members said nothing at the first meetings at which “the change” was reflected.

Although no objections or questions about the claim came in writing, the first time UN bodies met after “the name change” would offer an opportunity to raise the matter in a meeting. Any delegate could raise a point of order from the floor asking “What is that sign ‘Russian Federation’ and who is sitting behind it?” — and thus open up the issue for debate and discussion. The first meetings scheduled after the “change” were not in the General Assembly but rather in the Council. On Dec. 31, the Security Council met for the first time after the “change.” But it was the last day of the month which had heretofore been presided over that month by Ambassador Vorontsov as the USSR representative. On the 31st, however, he presided behind the “Russian Federation” nameplate. The meeting lasted 5 minutes at which a resolution on Western Sahara was adopted unanimously. The President gave a statement at the end thanking the retiring members of the Council. Not one word came from him or any member of the Council about “the change.” The members of the Council who could have mentioned it were Austria, Belgium, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, France, India, Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States, Yemen, Zaire and Zimbabwe. They all knew and could see there was a change but no words were spoken on the matter. There must have been a clear understanding among members behind the scenes that the Soviet representative would “see out” his presidency for the month as the Russian representative, regardless of “skipping” the alphabetical rotation rule for that one day (S/PV.3025).

Anyway, you can read the whole linked article. It is a good read for those who are interested in geopolitics and the non-bias.

please provide references for your earlier statement. I think it is blatantly wrong. Please prove to me otherwise.

At last somebody who engages intellectually with an answer, although I don't see the truth of it. Do you have any any resources supporting your statement? At least according Article 23 of UN charter, it's stated clearly of the five permanent members.

The Security Council shall consist of eleven Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect six other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the ​United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.

It's official for the five countries, not given but acquired.

EDIT: I am interested in the real knowledge and fact, and I am never interested in bias and one-sided answer just to support one's view. That not healthy academically.

I thought 'victorinox rescue tool' works for laminated glass. It even has glass cutter.