theoryofdoom在2022-01-17~2022-01-23的言论

2022-01-23 作者: theoryofdoom 原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

39: What is the most emotionally devastating book you’ve ever read?, submitted on 2022-01-17 03:06:26+08:00.

—– 39.1 —–2022-01-17 11:21:18+08:00:

The Green Mile by Stephen King.

I read Green Mile shortly after it came out. I think that was the first time I ever really concretely understood what evil was. It was weeks before I got over it.

—– 39.2 —–2022-01-17 11:24:10+08:00:

Rape of Nanking

This deserves more upvotes.

40: Math suffers from white supremacy, according to a Bill Gates-funded course, submitted on 2022-01-17 07:17:49+08:00.

—– 40.1 —–2022-01-17 11:14:57+08:00:

This is nauseating.

41: Time for NATO to Close Its Door: The Alliance Is Too Big—and Too Provocative—for Its Own Good, submitted on 2022-01-18 23:28:15+08:00.

—– 41.1 —–2022-01-20 00:43:26+08:00:

This is one of the most stunningly inept articles I have ever seen published in FA.

—– 41.2 —–2022-01-20 13:26:28+08:00:

I’ve been making the same argument for a while, and I agree. Turkey is a tremendous liability for NATO and Erdogan’s behaviour is unacceptable. Though I also never imagined we would be in a situation where an American president would let Vladimir Putin get this out of control in Europe.

So the question is whether, at this point, Turkey is still a necessary evil. In the short term (3-5 years), there are huge natural gas reserves in Turkey’s EEZ, which in addition to Ukraine’s and Romania’s could displace Russia’s de facto control of natural gas on the continent. In the long term (>5 years), another factor is the potential for an additional canal to access the Black Sea. Turkish cooperation on that would be critical.

At this point, I’d kick that can down the road until Putin is gone and the future of Russian political leadership thereafter has taken hold. I would also be curious to see how long Erdogan sticks around. This could become less of a problem, following political change inside Turkey.

—– 41.3 —–2022-01-20 13:29:43+08:00:

Perhaps, but kicking Turkey out of NATO would only help Putin.

Maybe. But consider what Turkey risks by allying itself with Russia. What has happened to Russian allies and client states in the not too distant past? How does their fate stack up with NATO allies or client states? Even if Turkey was out, it’s not like there would be no strings attached.

—– 41.4 —–2022-01-20 14:13:24+08:00:

Michael Kimmage argues that it’s time for NATO to close its door. According to him, “[t]he sheer enormity of the alliance and the murkiness of its mission risk embroiling NATO in a major European war.”

I do not know how this passed editorial review. Kimmage’s argument is neither well reasoned nor even well written. His argument, updated at the time I write this comment, is replete with numerous errors and omissions. On the few occasions when coherent, his argument is internally contradictory. Someone could have a field day identifying all the aspects of why.

Kimmage makes no coherent argument for why NATO (or any attribute of it, now or ever) is inherently provocative. Mearsheimer at least tries, based on his free-floating notions of Russia’s historical sphere of influence. Kimmage does not even lay foundation for what he means by “expansionist,” an adjective he uses to characterize NATO which must be meant to take the place of factual support. But I’m not inclined to do FA’s editor’s jobs.

In any case, this is the bottom line:

Kimmage is wrong because he assumes that in NATO’s absence or where its expanse was further limited, there would be peace in Europe. So, Kimmage’s argument is historically myopic. And yet he is a historian. Or so he says.

Returning to reality, war between is the historical norm in Europe. NATO is the foundation of European security, now as it has been since 1949. War between nation-states has been the norm since 1648, when the Treaty of Westphalia was adopted. One historical reprieve from that norm has happened: the end of WWII and creation of NATO.

To play this in Kimmage’s ballpark, the global stage’s anarchy is a violent winter storm from which NATO is the shelter to all members in Europe. Sometimes the weather may appear to clear, but it is always winter and storms are always on the horizon. Leaving a stranded traveler to die in the cold will not change the weather. Nor will burning down the house. It is that simple.

42: Russia moves more troops westward amid Ukraine tensions, submitted on 2022-01-19 05:00:36+08:00.

—– 42.1 —–2022-01-19 05:06:54+08:00:

Submission Statement:

This Associated Press article reports that Russia has moved an additional and unspecified amount of troops to Ukraine’s borders, including with Belarus. These new Russian troop buildup efforts follow multilateral failures to resolve diplomatically. According to the White House and Ukrainian officials, the threat of Russian invasion is imminent and escalating. The Kremlin and Russian defense ministry deny any intent to invade. NATO and allies continue their efforts to negotiate a resolution that does not involve war.

—– 42.2 —–2022-01-19 06:34:06+08:00:

Not a stupid question, especially given all the nonsense out there on this issue (e.g., Russia’s facially absurd claims that Ukraine somehow represents a military threat).

There are short-term gains Putin expects to incur from invading Ukraine. But they’re just fringe benefits. What matters is what is what Putin and Russia stand to lose, if Ukraine starts exporting natural gas to Europe.

There’s a very large natural gas field off of Ukraine’s coast in the Black Sea. It’s largely untouched and there are less than 100 wells drilled there. For perspective, there are more than 7,000 wells in the North Sea. Control of the Black Sea’s natural gas reserves enhances and further consolidates Russia’s control over that resource and its exportation to Europe.

Russia is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas, and its influence of those markets represents one of its most significant sources of power. Natural gas in particular has been Russia’s third-largest export for many years, after crude oil and refined petrochemicals. Russia exports more natural gas than any country on earth and has the largest proven natural gas reserves on earth. The only country on earth that produces more natural gas is the United States. Client states include essentially every country in Central and Eastern Europe who do not have their own reserves. Beyond the former Soviet bloc, Germany is a critical client-state for Russia.

Now, consider the world where foreign oil and gas conglomerates start tapping wells in the Black Sea in cooperation with the Ukrainian government. Obviously at the moment, Ukraine doesn’t have the infrastructure or technical capacity to even get it out of the ground. But what if they did? Ukraine has no interest in cooperating with Russia on natural gas exports whatsoever. Every country that relies on Russia for natural gas would far rather buy it from Ukraine than Russia.

Suppose that happens. If Ukraine develops a viable natural gas export industry with its reserves in the Black Sea, Russia is frozen out of the Soviet bloc and Germany. Ukraine’s relationship with Europe generally and Germany in particular solidifies based on their underlying trade cooperation. In that case, Ukraine has a pathway to NATO membership which it has lacked since 1991.

So that’s what this is all about. Putin is trying to knee-cap a competitor before they even have the chance to get off the ground. That is why Putin is massing troops on Ukraine’s border and is more likely than not to invade.

—– 42.3 —–2022-01-19 07:44:50+08:00:

Why does he do this so obvious and slowly?

That is a function of imminence and opportunity. Ukraine is not an imminent economic threat to Russia, its natural gas industry or control of natural gas supply in Europe. Putin has the time to wait for an opportune moment, because Ukraine has essentially no capacity to realize the potential for natural gas extraction in the Black Sea. Ukraine might develop that capacity with the help of foreign oil companies, but that’s unlikely to happen any time soon given the trouble Putin has caused in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. So, by invading Ukraine in 2014 (shortly after Exxon discovered the reserves in the Black Sea), Putin delayed Ukraine industrial development.

Putin likewise has to wait for the right opportunity. Putin got away with invading Georgia in 2008 because Bush was preoccupied in Iraq and needed Russia’s continued cooperation to resupply American military efforts in Afghanistan. That’s why Putin moved on Georgia when he did, and not before. Ukraine was a more desperate venture, however. Before and shortly after Maidan, there was some real potential for natural gas development in the Black Sea, even to the point that Turkey was approached to build a new canal to get around the Montreux Convention. That project is currently titled “Canal Istanbul,” if you were curious.

The question is whether now is the right opportunity. The two actors of primary relevance are the United States and Germany. For Putin, the key issue that keeps him from invading Ukraine is uncertainty over whether Biden would or could lead a unilateral military or NATO response.

Factors playing in Putin’s favor include: (1) there is no appetite for war in any NATO country; (2) no one outside of the United States has confidence in Joe Biden or his military leadership; and (3) every country in Europe with the military capability to hold off the Russian army faces considerable internal problems.

The American military withdrawal from Afghanistan was the single greatest military loss the United States has experienced since the pull-out from Vietnam. Mark Milley not being relieved after his catastrophic failure and unparallelled incompetence in Afghanistan was a clear signal: Biden’s administration has other priorities. Not to mention, Bush’s war in Iraq still looms like a dark cloud. Further, Europe is crippled due to COVID-19 and self-inflicted wounds resulting from its responses. All the while, it’s the middle of winter. Germany and others who depend on Russia for natural gas can’t afford the risk that Russia might turn it off Putin knows this, which is obviously why he is not moving in the summer.

Odds are slim Putin will ever have a better opportunity than this precise moment.

—– 42.4 —–2022-01-19 08:29:29+08:00:

I ignored the part of your question relating to obviousness, because it is incorrect to assume that Putin’s motives and interests are obvious in any general sense.

Putin’s motives are obvious to a select few who understand how he operates, but not to all. If they were obvious to everyone, you wouldn’t have asked the question you did in the first place. By now, we’d all know it and you would have heard what I said on the news. Someone would have made the connection between what is under the Black Sea, Ukraine’s border with the Black Sea and Russia’s control of natural gas in Europe. But sadly, realism (read: common sense) has yielded to free floating notions of Russia’s “historical sphere of influence” (e.g., Mearsheimer), illusions of “western expansionism” or other such nonsense.

The White House, for example, cannot figure out what Putin is up to which is why Jen Sacki keeps trying to put the “ball” in “Putin’s court.” According to public information released in a WSJ Op-Ed I linked as further reading to a submission statement a while back, the IC knows what is going on — but when people who are supposed to provide “oversight” talk about the IC’s understanding of this issue they obfuscate and confuse the issues (e.g., anything Adam Schiff says on CNN, at any time, ever).

Beyond what I said above, there are scores of different items of disinformation Putin has tried to hold out as justification or Russia’s military aggression. The most recent category of that nonsense is the illusion that Ukraine represents a “military threat” to Russia. This claim is transparently absurd to someone who understands Putin. But most do not. Russian media have repeated that narrative, which comes from the highest levels of Russian government, nonstop for weeks now. Russian media further claim that the United States and NATO are sponsoring terrorism against “ethnic Russians” in Eastern Ukraine. And last friday, the White House released a statement that Russia is preparing a “pretext” to justify invading Ukraine. I suspect that pretext may involve the surface to air missiles Putin is moving West from Novosibirsk, but it could be a repeat of Beslan or anything else.

That’s how Putin plays this game. Some just happen to be able to see through it.

—– 42.5 —–2022-01-19 08:40:27+08:00:

Geopolitically, the stars have aligned quite well for Putin, and I agree that it’s now or never in his mind.

I agree. In fact, it’s breathtaking how strongly fate has seemed to favor Putin in this past year.

He may still decide to back down, but he knows that if he does, his battle with the world will likely start to become a battle back at home.

I agree, but I doubt Putin will. What Putin is trying to figure out is whether NATO will retaliate. In invading Ukraine, Putin risks the nightmare scenario where he’s at war with NATO and Western oil companies start to develop the Black Sea. Any significant military loss would almost certainly mean the Montreux Convention is supplanted by something less favorable to Russia, Ukraine joining NATO and Russia not only losing control of the natural gas under the Black Sea — but the Black Sea itself.

So that’s what he’s waiting on. That’s why he’s moving slowly, so he can gradually escallate and assess changes to the risks he faces at each stage. Putin needs to take Ukraine without military resistance of any kind.

—– 42.6 —–2022-01-19 08:57:30+08:00:

Just be careful with money stuff. If you can negotiate the currency in which get paid, go for Euros or better yet Swiss Francs. If you must obtain loans, make sure you are borrowing and paying in rubles.

The nightmare scenario is that you have loans which must be paid in Euros but you get paid in Rubles. Then, Russia invades Ukraine and sanctions vitiate the ruble’s buying power. But you still have to pay loans in Euros. All of a sudden, the 1/10th of your paycheck that went to the loan now is more like 3/4ths of your paycheck.

Otherwise you will be fine. Russia is a nice country.

—– 42.7 —–2022-01-19 09:58:24+08:00:

If we’re talking about fewer than 100 wells in Ukraine’s side of the Black Sea, is it even an adequate amount of natural gas to start producing and exporting, that a big-time producer like Russia would go to war over?

That’s an excellent question. Ukraine does not have the infrastructure to export natural gas at any kind of scale that would threaten Russia at this time. However, if Ukraine signed a joint venture with Exxon, that infrastructure (enough wells) could be developed in a very short period of time. Like less than three years, probably.

What I’m asking is, is it even a viable alternative for Germany in the long run to switch to importing gas from Ukraine?

Based on the extent of the untapped reserves in the Black Sea, yes. And it’s not just Ukraine, either. Romania and Turkey want in on the action.

Or is the real problem here Ukraine’s potential “pathway to NATO”?

Ukraine only gets a pathway to NATO membership if it starts selling gas to Europe. And both of those things are a big problem for Putin.

—– 42.8 —–2022-01-19 10:20:20+08:00:

This means an invasion of and war with Ukraine is not a matter of if, but when.

Correct, absent other political changes inside Ukraine which result in Russia getting exclusive access to Ukraine’s natural gas.

First time I heard about the gas field, makes a lot of sense of the Russian motive.

I question whether anyone has briefed Biden on this. I doubt Psacki could even find Ukraine on a map.

—– 42.9 —–2022-01-19 10:34:12+08:00:

Do you know if NATO has built up any kind of reserves, supplies, ammo stocks, shipping armed vehicles, et cetera to support any sizeable military action in Ukraine?

The White House has been coy about military options. This has led some to incorrectly conclude that all military options are off the table and sanctions are the limit of what the United States is willing to do. But actions speak louder than words. Recently, Biden reactivated the 56th artillery command. Only the IC and military seemed to notice. The media are preoccupied with other things. Biden also either has considered or is in the process of diverting military aid meant for Afghanistan to Ukraine.

Notably, it’s not just the United States. For example, Canadian special forces have been training the Ukrainian army for almost a year now. I don’t think any of this is enough to prepare for war. It’s just keeping that option open.

Also, would this change Germany’s mind on nuclear energy?

I have no idea. Germany’s hostility towards nuclear energy goes back to the earliest days of the anti-nuclear movement. It should be lost on none that this is why they are beholden to Russian natural gas every winter.

—– 42.10 —–2022-01-19 22:46:13+08:00:

Have Russian oil and gas companies tried to partner with the Ukraine in developing those reserves?

Yes. Ukraine’s then president Viktor Yanukovych was facilitating those efforts, before Maidan and his untimely flight to Russia in its aftermath.

—– 42.11 —–2022-01-19 22:48:48+08:00:

If Russia invades, it will all happen live.

That is a really good point and I agree with your Bosnia example. The fact that international media were able to broadcast what was happening in Bosnia in the 1990s was what eventually shamed Bill Clinton into doing something — even if it was too little too late.

—– 42.12 —–2022-01-19 23:38:53+08:00:

What would you do if you were in Biden’s shoes?

We would have never gotten this far, in the first instance. That’s what this really comes down to before anything else. Biden is almost solely responsible for allowing the situation get this out of control in the first place. He was in a position to have prevented it and has failed to do so. Now, war in Europe is a very realistic possibility as a direct result of his incompetence and his administration’s failures of leadership.

But, with the pieces on the board as they are at present, if I was making the next move from Biden’s perspective, as a start, I would be coordinating with allies to (a) resolve their domestic political problems so that (b) they can focus on NATO security matters. To that end, I would be coordinating military response scenarios with Canada, Germany and France (who I view as a more reliable ally than the UK, at this point) and Poland, as well as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. To get Germany to the table, I would do everything in my power to resolve their natural gas supply issues. Same goes for the rest of Europe, too.

I would be explaining to the American people why Ukraine matters and I would have been investing in clear-cut, focused efforts to get their lives back in order after the self-inflicted wounds caused by the COVID response. The American people would be hearing from me via press conference (where I would actually take questions and answer them truthfully) on a bi-weekly basis. I would also never have someone like Jen Psaki speaking on my behalf. Josh Earnest would be the standard for what I would expect. There is no world where I would employ someone like Antony Blinken for any purpose. If I was going to pick a secretary of state, Mitt Romney would be my preferred choice.

I would also be making direct appeals to the Russian people, similar to the op-ed Putin published in the NYT years back. I would prefer to do that via press-conference, perhaps even from Russia, in a highly visible way, in Russian. If I could negotiate some kind of additional summit inside Russia, I would do what I could to rebuild rapport between the United States and the Russian people, for example by visiting Russian Orthodox churches, emphasizing shared cultural values and talking about Russian contributions to Western culture (literature, music, ballet, etc.). Sanctions would be off the table. Sanctions empirically cause more harm to civilian populations than their intended target, in any case. I do not view causing unnecessary harm to civilians as an ethical means of statecraft.

There would be no announced video-conferences with Putin, ever. I and my administration would be in person with Putin, in Switzerland (my preferred “neutral” location — ideally somewhere small and isolated like Andermatt but probably Zurich). Representatives from France, Canada, Germany and the UK would be at the table. Before that meeting even happened, I would have done the groundwork to ensure a coordinated military response to any further invasion of Ukraine from NATO.

The point of this exercise would be to make it obvious to Putin that the costs of invasion are unacceptably high. In this way, war would be avoided.

—– 42.13 —–2022-01-19 23:39:45+08:00:

Yes, Psacki.

—– 42.14 —–2022-01-19 23:46:27+08:00:

Geopolitically, a united Russia (pre-1991 USSR borders), is a more stable Russia, and will be better for world security in the long run for a simple reason: A Russia with more defendable borders will be more confident in its defense and less likely to cause trouble to the West.

And why do you think Russia’s borders are not “defendable” in the status quo?

—– 42.15 —–2022-01-20 00:40:05+08:00:

That’s quite a list, no offense but it doesn’t seem like any President other than a JFK or FDR could pull off the things you suggested considering the present political situation in the US.

That’s just a start. There are more things I’d be doing on the back-end, particularly with getting the IC and certain Russian oil interests.

I don’t see this as being about charisma, either. A less charismatic leader could have at least made steps in the right direction (e.g., George H. W. Bush). I agree fully that the state of the present political situation is pretty dire in the United States, but there are things that could be done to remediate it. The president’s role is an agenda-setting one. Once the agenda was announced, staff are delegated to come up with the plan to accomplish the president’s objectives. Bill Clinton isn’t the kind of person I’d want doing anything. But I think Barack Obama (with the right support) could get it done. I think there are others out there on the Republican side who could as well, with the possible exception of making appeals to the Russian people in Russian.

The current administration’s failures begin with bad judgement. Prior administrations have done far better. For example, Obama got some things wrong (like when he relied on Hillary Clinton’s assessment of Russia’s stake in Syria while she was the Secretary of State), but he got more right than he didn’t. His actions clearly indicated he understood where the pieces were on the board and how they related to one another. From a foreign policy standpoint, Obama’s record is better than most. But Obama, while charismatic, didn’t utilize the “bully pulpit” as much as he should have.

Is there anything that you would do that you think Biden can also pull off?

Everything about Biden’s approach to Russia is misguided. He’s got two problems I don’t see any chance of him solving: his people and his framework. As to the people, the people who speak on Biden’s behalf do not understand Russia. The last guy to “get it” was Michael McFaul, Obama’s ambassador to Russia. McFaul was fantastic. There were others in prior administrations, though. Even Trump’s team, Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo seemed to understand what was going on. Because he has bad advisors, he can’t make good decisions because he cannot understand how Putin is operating. So at this time, I don’t have confidence in Biden’s ability to accomplish anything. Frankly, his record of failure is no small part of why Putin is acting now to begin with. After all, if he invades, Putin will be betting on Biden’s inability to mount a coalition for resisting anything he does.

PS: What’s the issue with Jen? I am not aware of any major controversial statements, of course I don’t follow US domestic politics that closely.

The press secretary is the most public-facing role of any administration. So, this person must be trustworthy.
Yet, Psacki is untrustworthy. She prevaricates, misdirects and makes up things to suit whatever the current party line is. She routinely contradicts herself, stating one thing one day and something else the next. When faced with tough questions, she plays hide the ball. Lack of controversy isn’t the key metric, because in order for anything she says to be controversial someone would have to hold her accountable. Traditionally, that was the press’s role. But they demonstrate no inclination whatsoever to do so. For example, see Brian Stelter’s interview with her several months back. I know it sounds cliche to reference an Aaron Zorkin character as a measure of what a public servant should be, but if you want to see an example of a good press secretary look at CJ Cregg. But if you want to see an example more based on reality, look at Josh Earnest (Obama’s press secretary) or Dee Dee Myers (Bill Clinton’s press secretary for the first two years of his administration).

—– 42.16 —–2022-01-20 00:41:48+08:00:

Can you elaborate more on this?

Consider the unique set of factors I outlined above which have coalesced under Biden’s “leadership” that have played to Putin’s favor. My objective would have been to prevent all of those from happening in the first place, much less happening at the same time.

—– 42.17 —–2022-01-20 05:58:43+08:00:

There is no military threat Ukraine poses to Russia. Nor has the Kremlin identified one that can pass the sniff test.

Some purport to explain Putin’s troop-massing as a defensive measure to protect Russia’s borders in response to Ukrainian troop movement inside Ukraine. This is consistent with reports from, among others, Russian media who frame Putin’s actions as purely defensive, in response to “Ukraine’s creation of threats to the security of Russia.” So what is the threat? It depends on the time of day. Members of the Russian government have peddled conspiracy theories including, but not limited to, that the United States:

  • Has sponsored color revolutions inside Russia;
  • Is actively involved in sponsoring terrorist activities inside Russia;
  • Is supporting neonazis in Ukraine in general and Donbass in particular to “target ethnic Russians”;
  • Has conspired with human rights advocate groups inside Russia to overthrow Vladimir Putin’s government; and
  • Anything else the FSB can make up to support the narrative.

But in the world of reality, the Russian military is overwhelmingly more powerful than Ukraine’s. Over the past several months, Russia has amassed up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine’s border (including now from both Russia and Belarus). For perspective, the entirety of the Ukrainian military totals around 200,000 to 225,000 active personnel. This is why, among other reasons, the idea that Ukraine could or would invade Russia is absurd. If you wish to pursue this on your own, compare Ukraine’s so-called Air Force (and the inherited Soviet relic aircraft which comprise its fleet) to what Russia has now, on the relevant axes of comparison (age/condition, volume and pilot experience and etc.). Compare the extent of Russia’s missile capacity (number, range and destructive capacity) to Ukraine’s. Compare Russia’s logistical/surveillance capabilities with Ukraine’s. Compare heavy land-based capabilities. The list goes on and on. The point is that there is no military advantage Ukraine has to Russia.

Yet, Putin claims Russia has “concerns” relating to Ukrainian military exercises which he characterizes as “unplanned.” Putin’s “response” is the military equivalent of a neighbor saying “I saw you lighting candles inside your house without letting me know, so because I am concerned you might light another, I have summoned a fleet of fire trucks and have jumbo jets at the ready to drop fire retardant on everything around you, just in case you should decide to light others.

—– 42.18 —–2022-01-20 13:16:06+08:00:

What’s with the insistence on meeting in person? Is that just because negotiations do better under those conditions, or for another reason?

Negotiations work better in person than otherwise. That’s beyond the scope of what’s relevant to this subreddit so if you want to discuss further, we can DM.

43: When you think of a profession, which one is scariest if they suddenly said… “Oops..”?, submitted on 2022-01-19 15:43:12+08:00.

—– 43.1 —–2022-01-19 23:47:42+08:00:

The guy who prepares parachutes, before you jump out of a plane.

44: Another European nation defies China as Slovenia strengthens Taiwan ties, submitted on 2022-01-20 00:03:32+08:00.

—– 44.1 —–2022-01-20 00:12:11+08:00:

Submission Statement: Slovenia has announced its intentions to strengthen relations with Taiwan, following Lithuania’s lead by establishing reciprocal trade offices. The Chinese Foreign Ministry was “shocked” and “strongly opposes” such a “dangerous” show of support for Taiwanese independence. While Slovenia’s prime minister confirmed this would not go as far as establishing an embassy, Slovenia will be undeterred by the threat of Chinese economic reprisals.

45: Center For COVID Control Faked Test Results, Minnesota Attorney General Says In New Lawsuit, submitted on 2022-01-20 03:56:45+08:00.

—– 45.1 —–2022-01-20 22:14:41+08:00:

This is very helpful. Thanks for posting.

46: Good news in the fight against covid. Nasal COVIDROPS, submitted on 2022-01-21 22:04:24+08:00.

—– 46.1 —–2022-01-21 23:58:58+08:00:

I mean masks were supposed to be a stop gap until we had vaccines and effective treatments.

That’s what they said, until they didn’t:

“Cloth masks aren’t going to provide a lot of protection, that’s the bottom line,” former FDA director Dr. Scott Gottlieb told “Face the Nation” on January 2. “This is an airborne illness. We now understand that, and a cloth mask is not going to protect you from a virus that spreads through airborne transmission. It could protect better through droplet transmission, something like the flu, but not something like this coronavirus.”

People who think they are safe from infection because they put a surgical mask or cloth mask over their face are have been mislead. It’s not about whether any such mask is “worn properly,” whatever people think they mean by that.

It’s about the science of fluid dynamics.

It is exhausting watching people debate about this.

—– 46.2 —–2022-01-21 23:59:32+08:00:

But MUHH FREEDOMS!!!

That is the definition of a low effort post.

47: Will Russia Conquer all of Ukraine? Answer is yes, submitted on 2022-01-22 03:38:07+08:00.

—– 47.1 —–2022-01-24 01:49:09+08:00:

Editorialized title, and incorrect format. Resubmit this properly.

48: “Vaxxed Only” House Rule?, submitted on 2022-01-22 04:48:16+08:00.

—– 48.1 —–2022-01-22 14:26:30+08:00:

I would never ban people from my home based on their vaccination status. I think doing so is antisocial, inherently unethical and discriminatory.

I think the idea of demanding any kind of paperwork from anyone as a prerequisite for social contact is morally abhorrent. It is the definition of inhospitality.

I think any step towards normalizing that species of behavior is bad for us, as a society.

And the idea that the stakes of such a decision even approximate life and death is not only scientifically unsupported, it is pathologically narcissistic.

49: Fraudulent ‘pop-up’ COVID testing centers are rampant. Here are 8 tips to help protect against phony clinics and testing scams., submitted on 2022-01-22 07:11:42+08:00.

—– 49.1 —–2022-01-22 07:13:08+08:00:

These tips are particularly important, since a lot of these fraudulent testing facilities are just re-opening with a new name as soon as they’re shut down.

Here’s the bottom line: use your common sense. If it smells like bullshit, it probably is.

50: Oh My Fucking God, Get the Fucking Vaccine Already, You Fucking Fucks, submitted on 2022-01-22 07:12:44+08:00.

—– 50.1 —–2022-01-22 08:28:44+08:00:

Vapid nonsense, not in good faith. Do not submit this type of content again.

51: UK Intelligence accuses Russia of plotting to install a pro-kremlin leader in Kyiv as it considers whether or not to invade Ukraine., submitted on 2022-01-23 21:18:33+08:00.

—– 51.1 —–2022-01-24 01:44:35+08:00:

I think I trust UK intelligence experts over Russian ones

Rather than trying to figure out who has a reliable opinion, look at the facts and figure out what’s going on yourself. Getting the facts straight is the first step to understanding what’s happening. That’s the problem here.

—– 51.2 —–2022-01-24 01:47:30+08:00:

Putin runs these “pressure tests” of the western bloc relatively frequently, but this one is clearly different.

What exactly are you claiming is a “pressure test”?

—– 51.3 —–2022-01-24 02:43:44+08:00:

A “pressure test” would be an act that is designed to gauge the response of any system in extreme or at least non-nominal conditions.

I’ll clarify: What specific action(s) are you claiming Putin has taken that constitute a pressure test related to Ukraine at this moment in time?

—– 51.4 —–2022-01-24 02:49:50+08:00:

If Russia were to invade Ukraine. When is the best time to do it? Feb or March? Or now?

Dead of winter, when Germany is most in need of Russian natural gas.

—– 51.5 —–2022-01-24 02:59:18+08:00:

It is important to make the distinction between facts (which are objectively and verifiably true) and opinions (which may or may not be based on facts).

If someone says something to the effect of “Putin is responding to [x] . . . .” they are stating an opinion about why Putin is doing something. If that claim is not credible, the proper response is to ask “based on what?”

It’s possible whoever you’re talking to is just ignorant. This happens all the time. People read headlines and know less than nothing about whether they’re true or not. But it’s also possible people think they understand something they don’t. This also is common. People often think they know things they don’t and then want to debate about it, without even bothering to understand what they’re arguing about in the first place.

If someone is making facts up to support their opinions, they’re not engaging in good faith. That means there’s no point in interacting with them.

—– 51.6 —–2022-01-24 03:04:18+08:00:

It seems like you’re trying to explain why Putin has adopted a strategy of iterative escalation. The idea is that Putin’s actions towards Ukraine are essentially an information gathering exercise. By these provocations, he’s trying to assess what other stakeholders’ responses will be after each move he makes. He’s doing this because he doesn’t know how NATO is going to respond and he’s got a lot to lose if he miscalculates.

—– 51.7 —–2022-01-24 03:19:48+08:00:

I didn’t touch on Russian propaganda at all. All I said was that disinformation campaigns are employed by all countries, and that this specific statement by the UK foreign office isn’t supported by any published evidence.

Let’s clarify what you mean by that. Which of these three options are you arguing?

  1. The British communiqué provided no evidence to back up its assertion that Russia was plotting to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
  2. No public information whatsoever supports the British communiqué’s assertion that Russia was plotting to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
  3. No public information whatsoever supports the British communiqué’s assertion that Russia was plotting to overthrow the Ukrainian government, because the claim is false.

—– 51.8 —–2022-01-24 03:27:31+08:00:

He arguably has almost nothing to lose if he doesn’t invade.

By this you mean . . . what, exactly?

My theory amounts to a “pressure test” of the German will to act in accordance with a united, aggressive NATO response.

Returning to my prior question: What specific action(s) are you claiming Putin has taken that constitute a pressure test related to Ukraine at this moment in time?

Are you saying that Putin is only testing Germany?

To say that, “no you’re actually talking about iterative escalation” feels a little pedantic,

You appear to have misunderstood what I wrote. The question of what Putin is doing (read: iterative escalation) is different than the question of why he is doing it.

You’re claiming he’s testing . . . something. Yet what the “something” is that Putin is testing remains unclear. The wrench and bolts metaphor is incoherent, as is the car analogy.

Again: What is Putin testing? Only Germany, or Germany and something else?

—– 51.9 —–2022-01-24 03:31:04+08:00:

and as such it cannot be objectively verified that the claim is true.

Why can’t it be verified? Because:

  • Option 1: Because no facts exist to support the claim?
  • Option 2: Because if such facts exist, the British government didn’t say so?
  • Option 3: Because of the set of facts that do exist in the world to support the claim independently of whatever the British government said, they don’t amount to enough evidence?

—– 51.10 —–2022-01-24 04:32:27+08:00:

I’ve been very clear in these comments

No, you haven’t, though I think you think you have. That’s the problem. You’re using terms in ambiguous ways and making arguments that involve a lot of unstated assumptions. I’m just trying to figure out what you’re actually saying, as well as not saying.

that I believe that Putin’s aim is to increase tensions to see if there is a point where Germany discretely and irreparably breaks from the rest of the west in its response to anticipated Russian aggression.

One of Putin’s aims, or Putin’s sole aim?

Is Putin trying to test any country on earth other than Germany, in your view?

—– 51.11 —–2022-01-24 05:01:09+08:00:

You were correct that Germany depends on Russia for natural gas. But your analysis of what role Russia’s supplying natural gas to Germany has on Ukraine is wrong:

I think Putin continues to push until there is a clearer, more complete, break between the position of the smaller EU states (the US too) and the position of the new German system.

It is unclear whether you think Putin’s actions in Ukraine relate primarily to Germany or only to Germany; but in either case, this analysis is not persuasive because it misses the forest for the tree that is Germany. Germany is a component of Russia’s strategy, but only a component. Germany matters to Russia for Ukraine because in the status quo, Russia exports natural gas in large quantities to Germany (who relies on Russia for its supply). Particularly in the winter, this gives Russia some ability to influence German politics. To the extent Putin is trying to accomplish anything related to Germany from his actions in Ukraine, he is trying to preserve that influence.

Putin is not trying to sever Germany’s ties with the European Union, member countries or NATO. To do so would be plainly unrealistic. What you mean by “stress test” or “new German system” likewise remains unclear. Germany’s “socio-political system” didn’t change just because Merkel retired. Leadership has only changed hands. It’s that simple. As much as Germany depends on Russia for natural gas, Germany trades with many other countries for many other reasons — many of which vastly exceed the importance of the trade relationships Germany has with Russia.

What matters (i.e., the forest) is what is what Putin and Russia stand to lose, if Ukraine starts exporting natural gas to Europe. There’s a very large natural gas field off of Ukraine’s coast in the Black Sea. It’s largely untouched and there are less than 100 wells drilled there. For perspective, there are more than 7,000 wells in the North Sea. Control of the Black Sea’s natural gas reserves enhances and further consolidates Russia’s control over that resource and its exportation to Europe.

Russia is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas, and its influence of those markets represents one of its most significant sources of power. Natural gas in particular has been Russia’s third-largest export for many years, after crude oil and refined petrochemicals. Russia exports more natural gas than any country on earth and has the largest proven natural gas reserves on earth. The only country on earth that produces more natural gas is the United States, that cannot efficiently supply Europe. Client states include essentially every country in Central and Eastern Europe who do not have their own reserves.

Now, consider the world where foreign oil and gas conglomerates start tapping wells in the Black Sea in cooperation with the Ukrainian government. At present, Ukraine doesn’t have the infrastructure or technical capacity to even get it out of the ground. But what if they did? Ukraine has no interest in cooperating with Russia on natural gas exports whatsoever. Every country that relies on Russia for natural gas would far rather buy it from Ukraine than Russia. If Ukraine develops a viable natural gas export industry with its reserves in the Black Sea, then Russia is frozen out of the former Soviet bloc and Germany. Ukraine’s relationship with Europe generally and Germany in particular solidifies based on their underlying trade cooperation. In that case, Ukraine has a pathway to NATO membership which it has lacked since 1991, because in that case Ukraine has significant strategic value to the rest of the continent (including Germany).

So that’s what this is all about. Putin is trying to knee-cap a competitor before they even have the chance to get off the ground. That is why Putin is massing troops on Ukraine’s border and is more likely than not to invade.

—– 51.12 —–2022-01-24 05:02:33+08:00:

So you think the British government just made it up?

—– 51.13 —–2022-01-24 06:54:43+08:00:

Do you have anything showing exactly what anticipated natural gas reserves are within the Ukrainian EEZ?

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3191411-ukraine-loses-half-of-its-natural-gas-deposits-due-to-occupation-of-crimea.html

52: At-Will workers quit their jobs for higher pay, old employer asks court to block them from starting said new jobs until they can re-hire, judge grants injunction preventing them from starting their new jobs., submitted on 2022-01-23 22:43:52+08:00.

—– 52.1 —–2022-01-24 03:10:14+08:00:

The hospital dithered thorugh their notice periods (despite being at-will, several of them gave ample notice), neither reschudeling current staff nor making an effort to hire replacements, then filed an injunction days from their start dates claiming patient health was at risk.

It sounds like the hospital was confident that the non-compete clauses in their employment agreements would hold up.

Employers routinely put that kind of language in there, to prevent situations like this.

I don’t expect the injunction to hold up.

—– 52.2 —–2022-01-24 12:18:34+08:00:

No one has mentioned a non compete.

What do you think the old hospital argued was the basis for the old nurses’ ineligibility for rehire?

Some mysterious entitlement to prevent workers from going to work for a competitor, other than a non-compete?

—– 52.3 —–2022-01-24 20:47:12+08:00:

If there was a non compete, that would have been mentioned in the initial memo more than “think of patients”

“Think of the patients” is not legal grounds for an injunction, it’s a PR strategy.

—– 52.4 —–2022-01-26 12:21:41+08:00:

The prior hospital sought injunctive relief against its competitor. That’s a type of remedy which prevents the nurses from being hired. The particular contractual expectation with which the competitor hospital is accused of tortiously interfering seemingly did not occur to you. It turns out that if you induce a party to breach, that may make you liable for tortious interference. What might the nurses be breaching, you might wonder? Their non-competes, obviously. That should have been a dead give-away based on any discussion of eligibility for rehire. Clearly, you missed it.

Your speculation about what the adverse hospital might or might not have done or why is incoherent. To pursue that remedy against an array of former employees would involve undue/unnecessary expense, tedium and impracticality. Other remedies/relief remain available, which the hospital would be free to pursue against the nurses individually if they actually became employed. Though for economic reasons, the prior hospital would obviously focus its efforts on its competitor and not the former employees.

This isn’t complicated. Absent anything coherent to establish otherwise, I am not inclined to respond further. If you should so choose, link whatever you think establishes whatever you think you understand (which, I note, you have failed to do thus far).

—– 52.5 —–2022-01-26 12:57:56+08:00:

All I’ve said is IF they had some form of non compete clause in the hiring contracts, they would have mentioned it in /r/nursing/comments/s8tdki/shots_fired_our_ceo_is_out_for_blood/ these kinds of documents. In the absence of that being mentioned, there is no reason to speculate a non compete ever existed.

Literally not even the whole document … smh

—– 52.6 —–2022-01-26 13:02:43+08:00:

As previously indicated:

If you should so choose, link whatever you think establishes whatever you think you understand (which, I note, you have failed to do thus far).

—– 52.7 —–2022-01-26 13:14:21+08:00:

So you haven’t reviewed the nurses’ employment agreement?

—– 52.8 —–2022-01-26 13:42:36+08:00:

You have never seen the document whose contents you’re speculating about. You don’t understand the remedy sought by the prior hospital (read: injunctive relief) or the basis for it, much less the difference between injunctive relief and anything else (or the circumstances surrounding how either are obtained). It’s not even clear you understand what a non-compete is, have ever actually read an employment agreement or negotiated one. Much less have anything even vaguely approximating an understanding of the routine terms contained in any such agreement. In fact, it’s not even obvious you understood that tortious interference involved interference with a contractual expectation.

And yet, you still have the audacity to ask a question like that?

—– 52.9 —–2022-01-27 19:50:32+08:00:

I suppose it’s lost on you that the article you linked contradicts your prior claim. Realize that if ThedaCare had no argument based on any contract, they would not have sued for tortious interference. Yet again, you have failed to provide anything that would support your speculation as to what the nurse’s employment agreements did or did not contain. That blogger’s opinion is not evidence. It’s an opinion.

Once again, unless you actually have seen their contracts, it was equally speculation that a NC exists.

Realize that the baseline assumption, when in doubt, is that employers follow industry practice. Here, use of non-compete clauses is the routine industry practice for healthcare staffing, generally. That means that when the hospital’s attorneys drafted their standard employment agreements, one should reasonably expect to find a non-compete clause in the terms.

This is an issue that matters because of how prejudicial non-competes are to employees. There was a time that they weren’t the norm. Now, even if they’re not enforced by courts they still find their way into employment agreements because most people have no idea either (a) what the terms were of their employment agreement or (b) how those terms impact their rights, whether procedurally or substantively.

So, it would benefit you to stop arguing over this. Not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, but your recalcitrant approach creates the material risk that people are going to miss the point of why this dispute even matters — inside and outside of healthcare.

Non-competes are bad for workers. They create situations like this, where if a group of employees who are subject to unfavorable conditions leaves their former employer can frustrate their efforts to seek employment elsewhere. That’s why this matters.

文章版权归原作者所有。
二维码分享本站