If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone.
So if the regions remain under Russian control, the fighting will continue. Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up, until it’s over. Most likely outcome is that Russia attempts to hold the invaded territory for a period of years and eventually leaves when it becomes untenable for Russian leadership
The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.
So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.
> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions, and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.
They have already formally annexed, and subsequently lost a tonne of the area they formally annexed.
Nothing happened.
Crimea is also Ukrainian territory and not Russian, when they lose it im sure they throw another hissy fit like they do nearly every week now. But no one will give it any mind as Russia does it weekly.
> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict, and a demilitarized border is created between Ukraine and the lost regions.
My guess is the war ends when enough Russians die that the Russians back at home decide they have had enough of the war.
If the war continues until Russia wins simply because they annexed regions, then surely the next step is to annex a few more regions for fun and profit.
Georgia and Moldova seem more obvious, but there is a reason that in the current wave of Russian aggression Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO and the Baltic republics and other countries of NATO’s eastern flank have been among the most assertive about the need to support Ukraine; there are lots of obvious targets if the US isn’t willing to assist Russia’s neighbors in resisting aggression.
Any end of the war that shows aggression pays off dividends means the start of many other aggressions elsewhere, a new world order of might-makes-right that can only stabilise again once everyone is armed with nukes.
I don't think any outcome at this time would be a success for Russia, but feeding the meatgrinder until the world runs out of Ukranians just to send a message about aggression seems stupid.
Of course might-makes-right, the current world order was built on that - the military superiority of the US after WW2. Since then the champion of that new world order didn't shy away from invading other countries.
You write: "until the world runs out of Ukranians". This is very offensive, as it erases the process by which some Ukrainians are dying.
Anyways, back to basics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
Population Growth rate Decrease -0.39 (2020)[2]
Birth rate Decrease 9.8 births/1,000 population (2020)[2]
Death rate Neutral decrease 14.6 deaths/1,000 population (2020)[2]
Life expectancy Decrease 71.54 years (2020)[2]
• male Decrease 66.49 years (2020)[2]
• female Decrease 76.43 years (2020)[2]
It is Russian that are deciding collectively that the world should run out of Russians. This is a sad fact, I wish Russians would get fairness and hope some day.
> The war will also continue until the Russians win, since they have already formally annexed a few regions
They didn’t control much of the territory they purported to annex when they annexed it, and they’ve lost more of it since. The PR effort represented by that annexation is not a sign that the war will progress until Russian victory, if anything its the opposite.
> and the Crimea is strategically and historically important.
Crimea being strategically and historically important is certainly the reason it was invaded and seized in 2014, but its not something that makes Russian victory inevitable.
> So if I had to guess, the war ends when the US president changes and they no longer want to support the ongoing conflict
A US president abandoning Ukraine would definitely impact the course of that front of the war, and might result in a complete Russian victory over Ukraine [0]; that won’t end the regional war that started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, it will just shift the active fronts to Moldova and Georgia.
Not to mention the impacts on other areas of friction between the same China/Russia/NK/Iran bloc and the US, particularly in Syria, that will result from a demonstration of America’s lack of resolve, especially if it is accompanied by easing of the resistance in the European front of what has already become a global conflict.
[0] it might also shatter US relations with European allies especially the Eastern flank of NATO, which has been pushing support for Ukraine against Russian aggression harder than anyone, including the US, for reasons which should be geographically and historically obvious. It’s clear that there is a faction in the US, including at least the leading contender for the main opposition party’s nomination for the Presidency, that would see that as a plus, too, though why is less clear.
Thanks for the link, but I didn't see any answer that relates directly to the question we are discussing.
We can look at the general support for the Ukrainian establishment instead.
According to that survey,
The polling shows that in February 2023
31% strongly approve
40% somewhat approve
7% somewhat disapprove
4% strongly disapprove
18% difficult to answer/no answer
of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. This is a drop from 48% strongly approving in April 2022.
The polling also shows that the percent that strongly approve of the activities of
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky have dropped from 74% in April 2022 to 58% in February 2023.
And support of The Parliament of Ukraine is low, with only 9% strongly approving.
So, I don't think that there's strong enough support of The Ukrainian establishment to conclude that the population agrees with their stance that "the war will end when the Ukraine wins the war" (not that I'm sure that is the Ukrainian establishment's stance).
>>>If you talk to a Ukrainian, they will tell you that the war will end when they win the war. I.E. they won’t stop fighting until the Russians are gone.
>> Do we know if that's the view of the average Ukrainian?
Unless I misunderstood the question being discussed, it is answered precisely and directly.
"Do you believe that Ukraine will win the war?": 82% yes, 15% likely yes
"What will be the territorial boundaries of Ukraine as a
result of this war?" 74% internationally recognized borders, 8% w/ Donbas but w/o Crimea, 9% status quo ante bellum.
The thing in question is a stance on military policy, not a probability estimate. You can't go from probability estimate ("I think it is most likely that we will have the same borders as before the invasion") to policy stance ("I will not accept peace until we have the same borders as before the invasion").
The policy stance is directly implied by the probability estimate. This is certainly true if you accept my anecdata of ~6-8 of my relatives from the south of Ukraine and Kyiv who are, to a person, adamant about the vital necessity of winning the war to ensure their kids won't have to fight another one 20 years from now. There's absolutely no dithering in Ukraine about what the goal is: 1991 borders and one or both of EU and NATO memberships, with the NATO membership very likely being first.
These people didn't suffer for 13 months to accept some half-ass appeasement of a ceasefire to give Putin some breathing room to regroup.
> The policy stance is directly implied by the probability estimate
I think this is not the case. The policy "we won't accept peace until we achieve x" is very different to "we won't accept peace until we achieve x conditional on the achievement of x being probable"[0]. The first implies a kind of "to the last Ukrainian"/"you'll have to take it from my cold, dead hands" attitude, the latter doesn't.
[0] A conditional such as this is implied by your claim that "The policy stance is directly implied by the probability estimate": if the probability estimate leads to the stance, then it stands to reason that the stance may change if the probability estimate changes, which would (in this case) contradict the very nature of the stance (specifically, the "to the last Ukrainian" aspect discussed above).
I think all Ukrainians are very thankful that the US for helping them in their hour of greatest need, to defeat a genocidal invader.
Wanna know what they think of China? The answer is, they don't think of China. This is because, while China can afford the big boy pants and has probably already purchased them, they haven't put them on yet.
>Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up
They're pretty much going to have to give up at some point. The west can't feed them with sufficient arms and ammunition to keep up and it has blown through all of its spares. It can ramp up to match, but probably not within the next 2 years which is too late.
Western media has been putting a spin on this in the last week (e.g. blinken's "Ukraine will have to recover some territory through political means"), but it's pretty clear if you look at the production numbers, current shell rates, etc.
It's also why some Republicans are starting to feign being anti-war - to try and make this "Biden's" war, so in the event of failure the failure gets chalked up to him.
Canada, any single major NATO nation could produce arms in sufficient quantity, to make a major difference.
It's all about cost, not capability. And right now, that cost is being spread over dozens of nations, quite a few of them with wealth greater than Russia.
And that was GDP before sanctions.
So yes, 100%, we can supply the Ukraine forever. And beyond this, many countries are sending good, but aging equipment. Even artillery, ammo has age limits.
So we send older, but well maintained gear, and then buy new, refreshed supplies. That's what is happening in Canada, at least.
So Russia is actually helping the West's offensive capacities, by increasing military spending, and refreshing hardware.
And they could ramp up again, but it's not going to make a difference in the next six critical months especially without putting the economy on a war footing and suppressing civilian production like they did last time.
If China decides to supply Russia, it'll make even less of a difference. Russia already outproduces the US in steel (key input into shells, and a bottleneck in both wars). China outproduces by a factor of 10.
Nothing is "critical" about the next six months. In fact, it's possible nothing much will happen in the next six months, if Ukraine opts to spend it training the >100k troops it just called up during the late fall and winter, waiting for the armour from the West to be delivered, and building up a stockpile of ammo. Ukraine has this choice because Russia just exhausted its offensive capability in a mid-winter offensive that didn't accomplish much and has stalled out. Russia is spent as an offensive force until the mid-summer at the very earliest.
If China decides to supply Russia, it won't be in the quantities sufficient to make much of a difference, because they don't wish to trigger significant retaliatory sanctions, certainly not right now when the Chinese economy is in a vulnerable state of coming out of the COVID-era funk. China significantly underproduces Western countries in terms of military industrial complex, quantity but especially quality. I don't want to pull numbers out of thin air but it's Nx, N > 1.
I knew it would come. "Racism". The last refuge of the rascal, throwing dispersion.
Stating reality in China, is not racism.
It's junk because it's of poor quality, and even worse, poor quality control. Personal experience has shown me so, steel product from China is junk.
And no, I won't disbelieve my eyes, and experiences, nor will the many other people I know who have experienced what Chinese "steel" is like.
Car parts, every manner of tool, I've seen steel snap like twigs, screwdriver ends break off, plyers deform when used, brake calipers snap, while North America made parts do not, including tools 50 years old, rusted, stronger than Chinese steel junk.
Chinese steel is junk. Everyone knows this. It's junk.
Well China has produced half of the steel in the world and half of the finished steel products for many years. I can't think of a rational reason to believe that all that steel is constantly snapping "like twigs."
Are these tools all contemporaneous of each other and sold at the same price point? China will sell you anything you want. What most companies want today is planned obsolescence.
Ah, the old "but western companies demand cheap, so china makes cheap" argument.
A nice, classic deflection. Goes right up there with the racist deflection.
No. Western companies ask for spec, Chinese companies say "sure" when they bid, but then just make junk.
With junk parts.
Such as junk Chinese steel. Because they can't make quality steel, because the QA, and knowledge, and capability, and work culture isn't there. Note again, how it was only the early 2010s, when Chinese companies were able to make tiny little steel balls, reliably, and round enough, for ball point pens.
Russia is pulling out T54s on the battlefront, their T14 Armatas are still busy breaking down on red square, their planes are scared shitless and don't even dare fly close to the frontline, they're blindly firing S300s/S400s as a poor man's Grad, versus a Ukraine that receives 5% of the previous generation of crap from the western world. Add to that a highly motivated army (versus whatever clownery the russian army is) and Ukrainians that would rather see their entire country disappear than give in, because they remember the Holodomor.
Why apply that standard to scooters and not to cars? Parked cars are strewn all across the road, taking up much more space. Some sit in the same place for weeks.
The road outside my house is about 3x car widths across, there are private cars parked on either side (2/3rds of the total road space) for the full length of the road. Only one car can fit down the road at once, and pedestrians have limited pavement.
Why get so upset about a few scooters on the pavement, when there are cars literally everywhere in the way
Sure as an individual, but a movie studio would absolutely go after a company that is in the business of indexing, hosting and serving clips from their movies.
I suspect this is why Giphy got that license. And I bet it comes with some terms like allowing studios to remove GIFs they don't like, etc..
> And I bet it comes with some terms like allowing studios to remove GIFs they don't like, etc..
Y'ever noticed how the "send a GIF" panels in apps (often using Giphy behind-the-scenes as whitelabel) often have the top few rows of "trending" (quotes intentional) GIFs are mostly taken from recent major Hollywood releases? Most of the time it's whatever the most recent Marvel MCU film was - or some other mass-market action film - so if not the MCU then it'll be from whatever Disney's latest Star Wars movie or TV show just-so-happens to be.
...so yeah, that's very likely paid product placement right there. Not only is it free advertising for Marvel, but it's advertising that people actually want to share with each other!
Of course, what gives Giphy its credibility with net-savvy users is that they let people upload and cut their own GIFs. If you instead imagine Giphy as just being a free, maybe even banner ad-free, repository of GIFs but was strictly read-only (maybe have a likes system?) and comprised of only rightsholder-approved GIFs (but imagine the selection was still substantial so 75%+ of the time you'd still be able to find the right reaction GIF for your situation: it's just it'd all be the same well-known actors playing the same roles in all the same kinds of films and TV shows; no user-generated-content or really any material that isn't owned by a Fortune 500 media company) - but would people still use it? I think they would - especially if the E2E user-experience quality is there... as opposed to most other kinds of sites that do tolerate their users committing acts of copyright violation, but plaster the site in the worst online ads of all (because most of their users are smart enough to be offended by homogenized and consolidated entertainment media then they're going to be smart enough to run adblock too).
Disney Co is now at the point where they can choose to give Giphy a sweet deal (e.g. a covenant not to sue or even an explicit copyright license, provided Giphy promotes pro-Disney GIFs) and use Giphy not necessarily for their own direct benefit (i.e. GIFs as advertising new films), but to choose to actively support, fund and promote Giphy to ensure Giphy stays the default place for GIF editing and exchange, but because Disney then effectively "owns" Giphy, they can shut-off and shut-out promotion for all other non-Disney franchises just to ensure Disney laps up people's mindshare and imaginations: soon, in a few decades, Disney will own the rights to all new original thoughts.
Fair use really depends on, well, the use. If you were to take a 5s clip from a movie and use it as a commercial for your product, you would almost certainly not be within fair use rights.
This could be a reasonable entry point for a non-technical user who just wants to watch videos. If you layer in recommendations system, trending etc. and have a default "Instance" for users to join, Peertube could start to compete with the user experience of YouTube
These recommendations you're laying out to help compete with YouTube are antithetical to the whole purpose of peertube.
First, a default instance is definitely a bad idea if you're trying to build a decentralized network of tube site servers, and it increases cost on a central entity in the network (probably framasoft who would be hosting the "default" server). The whole idea is for there not to be a central server.
Recommendations and trending are architecturally untenable as well as antithetical. When you're collecting whatever criteria makes a video "good" from disparate servers across the web you introduce a ton of bandwidth and other issues. And why would anyone want some algorithm deciding for them what they feel like watching? Beyond that, something like this is hard to get right, you're more likely to get it wrong and wind up with pissed off users.
NFTs are obviously a bit silly, BUT, it would be nice if things bought on platforms like Steam, Roblox, Amazon, iTunes etc. were transferable to other games/platforms.
The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers could enable web3 support in their games/apps and allow importing assets, identities etc. between platforms, which would be nice.
I'm gonna copy my questions from another thread about transferable items because I'm genuinely curious about the answers.
Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?
Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?
Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!
Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?
I guess you could point at some metadata/description and let each game render that how it likes?
Eg if I have a red hat nft you could have that as 2d sprite art or a 3d model or just a buff to some other stat or just ignore it.
Why wouldn’t they sell it for a couple of bucks? It doesn’t have to be expensive because it’s an nft, plenty of them are sold for pennies. erc1155 is designed with lots of varying items being created on the same contract.
Why nfts? Because it’s easy to do today and has been getting more and more popular over the past three years. It seems people like them.
People don’t want to download files and import them into programs. Having one login(wallet) that you connect to anything you want and it takes your data and belongings with you seems pretty neat to me.
I seldom play video games, but I would definitely hate to have an advantage in one game, just because I had won the same or a similar advantage in some other game. Sharing stuff across different games seems a really stupid idea to me.
Ignore the speculation on NFTs as a “single owner” of a piece of digital art for now, like most high art, it’s BS.
Just think about the things you buy online, be it movies, artwork, music, in app upgrades etc. Today we trust each individual app developer to honour the purchase agreement, eg. if the Amazon disappears or changes their license agreement, all your purchases are gone.
Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.
>Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.
How? Why does it matter that it's on some blockchain?
It could be on a normal database/server, but then all parties would have to agree on who controls that, and it would be difficult for new developers to join.
We’d need some kind of way to trust a public database among untrusted participants- which is what a blockchain basically does.
Are NFTs likely to do that? No. Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money? And even if they wanted to, which they won't, why would they bless some specific blockchain with that power? If that is at all viable, somebody like Steam or Amazon will want it to be their own digital assets registry that wins. For that, they don't need a blockchain, just a database.
Steam has already disallowed "Applications built on blockchain technology that issue or allow exchange of cryptocurrencies or NFTs." from their platform. They have a very successful item marketplace which they get a cut of and aren't interested in blockchain systems competing. Epic has said they will allow it, presumably to differentiate themselves and because they don't have such a system.
>Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money?
I know, right? Or to look at another similar situation: why would Verizon, China Mobile, T-Mobile, and AT&T all make their voice/data networks interoperable?
Exactly. The early history of telephone systems was rife with refusal to interconnect.
And the analogy is terrible because the whole purpose of telephones is interconnection; the value is in the size of the network. But from the consumer perspective, portability for music purchases or game assets is at best a secondary concern.
This could be done without NFTs. There aren’t that many platforms, they could all build api integrations if they wanted. But they don’t want to because they like having users locked in.
NFTs along with all non money crypto feel like a solution in search of a problem. And all of these solutions are things already possible and easier without crypto.
Just imagine, if you bought a movie or game and could "consume" it on any platform you want, or event download files from web, skipping platforms. While technology is there, and you could prove ownership using public or private blockchain, this is obviously "bad for business" and no company will ever implement it. They better re-sell you same digital goods few times on several platforms.
So the idea is that when I play Call of Duty, I can wear the hat I purchased in Roblox? And when I'm in Roblox, I can use the character I purchased in Call of Duty?
Yeah, nobody wants that. I think they shoehorn this idea in every NFT discussion, even though they know it's not a very good idea, because so far it's the only use-case they have been able to come up with.
I'm not holding my breath for transferable content between platforms when big game studios cannot make save data compatible between the same PC game if bought on different stores. If you start playing Forza Horizon 5 on Xbox Game Pass and then decide to buy it on Steam, you have to start from the beginning because the save data is not compatible between the two different store versions.
That's source code from the project. Tailwind is just inline styles via CSS shorthand classes. I cannot understand why anyone would want this unless they are coming from bootstrap.
Tailwind is unreadable when glancing through source code, especially when styles get large. It's just a web fad.
1. Yes it's almost another language, you have to memorize shorthand syntax that is sometimes unintuitive.
2. I need something cross-platform, not a web specific tool. I've moved to RN Stylesheets for both native and web and I don't deal with normal CSS at all.
3. I don't have a problem naming classes, I find it helps maintaining later at the cost of slightly more time upfront. Plus you can compose multiple classes based on states. You can also reuse those classes within the same component. Seems difficult to do that if you inline things. If I did want to skip naming I would use something like JSXStyle/SnackUI instead of Tailwind (direct props, not shorthand strings).
Tailwind is great for web designers wanting to iterate a design quickly, that's about it. I feel you pay for it later though. It's ugly and unreadable at a glance. We just circled back to inline styles.
Right, I misunderstood you and I agree with that. I suspect CSS might always have some cliquey tools like this because although it's fundamentally not too complicated, it doesn't suit all people's ways of solving problems (visually or otherwise) - they'll always reach for something that helps them abstract it some other way or patch holes in their understanding of the language.
padding 48, on small screens vertical padding 32 and horizontal padding 24, center styled? try doing that inline....
i always see this and never understand the pushback, or have people never worked on large apps spanning hundreds/thousands of components and have to maintain it.
it's a godsend when working on older components and i don't have to dig thru some other css file and figure out exactly how and why i named it. inline css doesn't allow to do transitions, animations, responsive breakpoints, etc. everything is there is contextual and i never break flow going from design to implementation. you still can have global styles or can have a master design guide.
My point was the end result is the same as inline, yes it's less verbose than inline but it's more obscure unless you have all the shorthand class names memorized. It's just a messy string, can you even make that type safe?
> and i don't have to dig thru some other css file
That's a separate issue solved via CSS-in-JS in general. I believe your styles should be isolated to your component, preferably in the same file, not global. That doesn't mean we have to shove styling in the className string attribute.
> My point was the end result is the same as inline, yes it's less verbose than inline but it's more obscure unless you have all the shorthand class names memorized.
It's not the same as inline styles because it expresses things that inline styles fundamentally cannot. Inline styles don't have media queries or selectors.
> It's just a messy string, can you even make that type safe?
> It's not the same as inline styles because it expresses things that inline styles fundamentally cannot. Inline styles don't have media queries or selectors.
Okay, it's as if you added media queries and selectors to inline styles. It's still a nightmare to read like inline styles. It's terse, but as a result it's also more cryptic. It leads to long strings of near gibberish until you carefully read it out.
> WTF? Is any other HTML class string typesafe?
My point is a className string is not typesafe, my styles are fully typed, because it's normal TypeScript. Shoving styles into a string would remove that feature.
I get autocomplete and type checking for the component styles, for example, if it's a view component then it only gets view styles, trying to apply "color" will result in a error.
It's incredibly useful to have autocomplete and type checking for your styles because there are so many combinations of properties. You don't want to supply a number when a string is expected for a font weight, you don't want to supply a value that isn't supported, you don't want to apply a text property that will have no effect on a view element.
The local movie theatres was checking IDs when it was released, so we couldn't watch it there. So I just pirated it a week later and my friends and I watched on a 15" CRT. Fun times!
Chromecast is also unusable for 99% of apps. On Linux, there is no reliable way to use it to play movies with embedded subtitles on your TV. Probably because the protocol is too hard to implement.
So if the regions remain under Russian control, the fighting will continue. Given Russia couldn’t conquer Ukraine first time round, it seems unlikely that they will be able to support a sustained campaign against a country that isn’t going to give up, until it’s over. Most likely outcome is that Russia attempts to hold the invaded territory for a period of years and eventually leaves when it becomes untenable for Russian leadership