> As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:
"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
> threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population
If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge.
Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.
> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy
No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.
I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.
Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will,"
> "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians"
I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by highly concentrated power, limited political pluralism, and the suppression of dissent, often enforced by a charismatic leader or elite group
.
A mandate is an authoritative command, order, or authorization to act, typically given by a higher authority, such as voters, a court, or a governing body
.
So in the sense that a mandate is passed by government, and governments are sometimes authoritarian? If your logic is stronger than that you'll need to explain it to me. I'm not saying Asian countries are not authoritarian, I take no stance on that, I just genuinely don't understand how mandates imply authoritarianism.
Syncing them with electricity is easy. The hard part is preventing export to the grid which requires either a compatible smart meter that can communicate with your panels or a transformer clamp installed by an electrician. My understanding is some meters measure both directions equally so if you do end up exporting power you can conceivably increase your utility bill.
We just got rooftop solar in Canada. Our meter was old and had to be upgraded to bidirectional.
We were warned if we turned on the system before the meter upgrade the old meter would sum together power coming from the grid and power going into it from our solar and we would be billed for the combined.
So with some old meters you don’t want to put power into the grid.
You must live in Europe. Not entirely sure but that's the way things are going in North America, as far as I know all the proposed legislation here is zero export. I guess one concern is local grid instability if too much power is generated this way. Also if for example you put a plug in solar on the same circuit as an appliance that uses its power then the breaker doesn't "see" this usage but it still heats up the wire just the same leading to fire risk, but not sure if this has ever been demonstrated or just theoretical. And also there's the old meters still around that don't measure bidirectionally, so those will just roll back or roll forward each way, neither desirable.
I don't interpret your statistic the same way you do and I don't think it backs your point. Some of the difference between that 11% and 33% you quote are due to the fact that gas is baseline cheaper in the US than China, and a mere denominator difference doesn't prove one more reliant than the other on gas when it goes up by a flat rate, which is how oil prices generally impact gas prices. Another factor you're failing to consider is the possibility that economic headwinds due to oil prices or any other factor really (you're trying to model an extremely complex system here and the war can affect these two economies in many other ways) impact Chinese demand for gas (driven by their mfg sector) more than American demand for gas (driven by broader factors) - maybe cargo price, currency, shift of demand from consumer to military, or who knows what are causing the things you see. I don't claim to have the answer, I am just saying your measure is totally insufficient to prove your point. You're correct that it's a global commodity that impacts everyone but most experts agree that it impacts east Asia more than the US.
"Take desalination plants as an example. Yes Iran has those too but Iran also has significant snow melt as a source of water, Mountains, remember? Iran has ski resorts they have that much snow."
Iran is in a dire situation with its water supply. It used to rely on an ancient system of ancient Qanat wells that only provide a fixed amount of water that can't be overdrawn, but in their quest to be self sufficient in terms of food they have gone to groundwater instead. The Qanats haven't been maintained so their output has reduced, probably permanently to some extent, and the ground water table is running dry to the extent that they are considering moving their capital.
The difference between microtransaction today and trash in the past is that the old games achieved success by not being trash. Yes trash existed but it was generally not successful and the market generally rewarded quality so the money and dev effort went into quality games. Today the money is made by gacha games so that's where the effort goes. Not the same imo.
There was plenty of movie tie-in shovelware that sold well. ET is obviously the infamous example, but this continued to go on into the 3D era. Sports games too. They aren't universally bad, but often they succeeded just because they have the official license. It's just like any kind of media, bad stuff can succeed because of deceptive marketing or slapping a familiar name on garbage.
This is all a vast oversimplification. There are obviously hundreds of games coming out every year without gacha mechanics.
I'm not familiar with the details of the situation but the tunnel is being used for transit either way right? If someone used to rely on busses in that tunnel aren't they vastly more likely to switch to whatever replacement is in the tunnel (rail?) than a car?
What is your source for the nitecore being higher capacity than the equivalently rated haribo? All primary sources I've seen so far indicate they are comparable at 70-75%
I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:
"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
reply