Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gcbirzan's commentslogin

We (or at least not the insane part of) in NATO are using you, in the sense that it's easier for us to throw money at you fighting Russia than not, you losing, then us having to lose people.

I don't know how I feel about that, on one hand, we are helping you defend, on the other we are just going "well, at least it's not our civilians and soldiers dying".

But, either way, thank you!


I wouldn’t call it “using” I would call it “supporting” since most of us fight willingly. There is no way any army could hold back Russia for 5 years if we weren’t extremely determined and willing to fight.


I would call it using. Because we could've sent troops there, we just chose not to. You are obviously doing it for your own reasons, but we are just happy to see you get slaughtered, as long as our people don't get killed.


Plenty of Americans and Europeans die on the Ukrainian battlefield every day. Western governments don't officially send troops, but there are plenty of people who are willing to risk their lives to defend an oppressed sovereign nation from invasion.

As for the fact that the West could've sent troops but chose not to, yes, that does hurt a lot of Ukrainians, and some do feel used. But we'll fight and win anyway, to defend our homeland, because we have no choice - material support from the West is better than nothing.


Yes, it is in the interest of Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they're pushing for it or prove that Ukraine attacked Romania. And since these were Russian drones, are you suggesting that, unlike the previous times Russia bombed indiscriminately, this time Ukraine stole Russian drones and launched them at Romania?

As for the second part of your comment, your point is that Russia occupied and committed a genocide against that 'fake' country, when they became free tried to exercise soft power, failed, then invaded, but yet it's NATO that is waging war there?

The only part where you're right is that it is in NATO's interest that Ukraine keeps fighting, since it only costs us money, not people, while still killing the enemy. And that's why we're (and I include the EU here) giving them money, because we're terrified of what will happen when Russia is done with Ukraine.


They are all just as easy to shoot down, if you're willing to spend half a million dollars doing it. When you're Romania that hasn't been fighting a war for years and you get one a day, it's trivial to shoot them down. When you get tens to hundreds a day and you're Ukraine, it's harder since you cannot afford to use F16s and sidewinders to shoot them down. And even if you do, you cannot shoot down all of them, but when you just get one a day, it'll be a while until the 95% interception rate gives you a miss.

Oh, wait, Romania actually got hit by one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93x4nxlkjeo

It's just a matter of numbers, both percentages and money.


Why did you post an archive.is link?


He said why: "it gets blocked where the law allows such". I appreciate the link since it's blocked for me.


Annas Archive is blocked in some countries (like mine, Germany)


Netherlands also.


Depends on the provider I think, it's blocked for me on Youfone (KPN), but IIRC when I used Ben (Odido) it worked fine. It also loads just fine on my university eduroam wifi.


Ironic


So that people can access it.

Ask better questions


> Ask better questions

:(


Sadly, it's populated.


My friend, misanthropy is giving last year energy. Don't get so down. In other under-reported news: until the Earth reaches 100% de-population, it can in-fact get worse. Therefore, it's currently not that bad!

Let's take a moment to appreciate that we live on a populated planetary body. The Peter Thiel has not yet achieved its ultimate goal. Good times.


> My friend, misanthropy is giving last year energy. Don't get so down.

Have you read the news lately?


No - that’s my secret.


> Trump's landslide victory in 2024.

What are you talking about?


It's called the Big Lie. Tell an egregious lie often enough, and some people start to believe it.


If you want to challenge a point, then challenge it. Don't cower behind ambiguous snark.


It wasn't a landslide.

It's on you to argue it was, e.g. by comparing it to other clear landslide victories like Reagan in 1984. Truth is that 2024 the final popular vote gap was 1.5%, compared to 4.5% for 2020, -2.0% for 2016 (yeah, really), 3.9% in 2012, 7.28% in 2008, and so on.


Does the term landslide have a widely accepted definition? One definition could be winning every single swing state, which Trump did.

I think you also have to factor in the degree of political polarization today, and in particular Trump's polarizing nature, which means that there is smaller pool of "effectively independent" voters to fight over. So 1% today is worth more than %1 in 1984. These, are of course, not particularly quantifiable measures.

The point is taken tough, "comprehensive victory" would have been the more appropriate description.


We shouldn't compare doing stupid stuff on sqlite vs doing stupid stuff on postgresql, we should compare doing stupid stuff on sqlite vs not doing stupid stuff on sqlite.

How much faster are the better queries?


He, on the other hand, was an absolute piece of shit.


We're talking about his political views, try to keep up.


Yes I am aware. Hence asking which views.


One way or another, this is saying a lot about you.


I'd say it says more about you that simply inquiring as to what people find issue with is considered bad.


That he isn't a mindless drone going along with the outrage for no other reason than it's the approved thing to do?


I'm using Easy Move+Resize, though, I don't recommend using cmd as the only modifier (you're already using ctrl+cmd, so shouldn't be a big deal), since that screws up with cmd clicking on links to open in a new tab.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: