cik2e

I don't think so.

I'm seeing estimates of 120-150k Russian troops deployed in Ukraine from sources like the Ukrainian government and the Pentagon. Outside of Russian propaganda, the estimates range from 10-12k range for Chechen fighters. The 10k number came from Chechen leadership. These numbers don't support the notion that Chechens are doing the bulk of the fighting or dying in Ukraine.

Moreover, the only reports of engagement with Chechen forces are in regard to the elimination of a special forces unit tasked with assassinating Zelensky. Russians are using the image of Chechens as fierce, brutal, battle-hardened fighters in an attempt to demoralize Ukrainians. If Chechens were doing a significant share of the fighting it would all over the news. Ukraine would capitalize on this as well to rally the populace against the "Putin's vicious Chechen mercenaries".

It looks like we're talking about freezing assets and imposing travel bans. One would have to assume that the oligarchs in question are smart enough to have anticipated this and took preemptive measures to safeguard their assets. I would also guess that enough of their wealth has been held outside the reach of foreign entities to begin with.

What do these sanctions aim to achieve? Do we think that the oligarchs are going to turn on Putin? I am guessing that there is nothing they can do to depose him. That's an obvious source of danger for Putin and I am sure he has taken every precaution to ensure that the oligarchs cannot take him down, even with a unified front. We have to remember who we are dealing with here. Putin has proved himself to be a ruthless dictator. I bet he has agents in position to assassinate any one of these individuals at a moment's notice.

I also do not believe that economic sanctions are enough to stop a determined Russian government from waging war. Once again, sanctions would have been anticipated. One has to assume that Russia has taken measures to mitigate the potential impact ahead of the invasion. Even without preemptive stockpiling, I am guessing that Russia is not going to run out of resources needed to wage war anytime soon and even in the long term.

I have analyzed Russia's imports and exports and it looks to me that they are capable of surviving permanent economic isolation from the west, at least in terms running a war economy. Russia seems to be quite economically self-sufficient on that front. Its common imports with strategic value consist of industrial equipment and electronics. China, its biggest trading partner, will not stop providing these goods to Russia. I am not knowledgeable enough about the chip market or related goods like neon gas that was discussed here a few days ago. But once again, I would assume that Russia has plans for how to procure or manufacture military related hardware.

As for exports, yes, losing income from energy exports to the west will certainly hurt. But once again, there is no reason why more of those exports won't be shifted to China. With global demand slashed for Russian gas and oil, China should be able to buy these from Russia at very attractive prices. It would take a complex analysis to estimate how much Russian trade can be shifted to non-western partners but my gut tells me it would be a substantial amount.

There is no question that Russia's economy will contract without Western trading partners. But ultimately, who will this really hurt? I've been making the case that this will not materially impact Russia's ability to wage war in any way. If this was a serious weakness then Russia would not have invaded Ukraine to begin with. Logic would dictate that Russia has spent years preparing for this.

As for the day to day economy, I am not sure how much of a trickle-down effect this will have on your average citizen. Jobs will be lost but the energy sector is probably not doing much to enrich your average citizen beyond a source of income. Oligarchs will take a hit on personal wealth but I have already talked about how I do not believe they will be doing anything to overthrow Putin. My guess is that the loss of energy revenues will impact citizens most directly in terms of a potential contraction to social safety net payments.

My overall point is that I believe Russia can handle being plunged into a second Cold War from an economic perspective. Putin's actions indicate the desire and willingness to do so. It seems that Putin is hell-bent on restoring the Soviet Empire with him at the helm as Stalin 2.0. The Soviet Union collapsed because of the economic and bureaucratic failures of Communism. In Putin's view, both of these problems have been resolved. As an autocrat, he can pursue a consistent agenda for years to come. He is economically unhampered by the baggage of central planning and can rely on consistent future trade with what is soon to be the world's largest economy.

I was born in Ukraine and started school right after it gained it's independence. I still remember being taught propaganda about Lenin and the glory of the Bolshevik revolution in kindergarten. I feel terrible for the Russian people and hope that my countrymen will persevere for everyone's sake.

Rim to rim, the canyon is pretty darned wide.

You can't possibly be serious! If this view is based on your real-life experience then I am amazed at the rarefied circles to which you belong.

https://www.thinkimpact.com/literacy-statistics/

- Nationwide, on average, 79% of U.S. adults are literate in 2022.

- 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2022.

- 54% of adults have a literacy below 6th grade level.

- 34% of adults who lack proficiency in literacy were born outside the US.

Based on these stats, you can rest assured that at least half of the adults in the United States do not have perfect grammar. And although "proficiency" is not precisely defined, I think it's safe to assume that a majority of these low-literacy adults are native speakers.

If you're referring to Bush Sr., then this is also incorrect. The economy and Ross Perot got rid of him.

And your final line about him being dangerous because he inspires people to have opinions about things they are not qualified to assess... Utter garbage. First of all, you don't know anything about his audience, their qualifications and their opinions and conclusions. Second, this line of thinking would extend to all media. Here, let me give you a contemporary example:

- Masks aren't necessary, just wash your hands

- Wear masks

- Closing schools is good

- Closing schools is bad

- The vaccine stops the spread - Don't need masks if you're vaxxed

- The vaccine was never meant to stop the spread, sorry you interpreted it that way - Fauci's own words (how many people died because we were told that the vaxxed don't have to worry about infecting anyone any more?)

- Wear masks even though you're vaxxed

- Get the Vax to save others even though it doesn't stop the spread

The mainstream media has been a pile of hot garbage and endless contradictions during the pandemic. You're expected to just take everything they say at face value and "trust the science". That right there is what's truly dangerous.

The media and government should be honest and explain that "the science" is far from conclusive, rapidly evolving, and that there are many unknowns. Instead, they of course assume that everyone is a moron and must be told what to do.

The idea that Rogan is dangerous because some morons may do whatever a guest tells them to do is full of hypocrisy. That, and neither Rogan nor his guests actually tell anyone what to do. But they may inspire people to ask questions and dig deeper. And the fact that this is so frowned upon in this day in age, is the tragedy of our time.

I was having two to three strong IPAs every single evening for about the last 10 years. This would give me a nice buzz but nothing close to getting drunk. I stopped completely six months ago. Since then, I've had no noticeable mental benefits to speak of, but I also wasn't experiencing any noticable negative effects beforehand. I have never had elevated liver enzymes. I am physically active and keep a healthy diet.

I decided to stop less for the health reasons but more because I was definitel psychologically super addicted. At this point in my life, I want to begin a new phase without any substances having a hold on me. Pot was a much more serious issue for me, but alcohol is objectively worse for the body so I figured I might as well let go of it too.

Overall, stopping was surprisingly easy. No withdrawals or anything like that. After two weeks I started having emotional cravings for IPAs, cause they are just so damn tasty. That, and kicking back after work with my wife and a few beers had become a very ingrained ritual. Another month from there that went away, along with any thoughts of wanting to drink, period. Going food shopping is about the only time I'm reminded that alcohol exists.

I did make the conscious choice to have a 9% 20oz IPA after about 4 months off. I was very curious about what kind of effect that would have after such a long break. It was strange. I barely felt any effect from the alcohol and got a nasty hangover the next day that lasted into the early evening. I suspected this had something to do with the hops so two weeks ago I repeated the experiment with 24 oz. of 10% Belguian sour. No hangover but still a very subdued effect from the alcohol. I guess even though my enzymes weren't elevated, there is some other mechanism that was making my liver less efficient at processing the booze when I was drinking.

Anyway, my main point is it's all a matter of habit. Unless you're well into the physical addiction phase of alcoholism, it's 100% emotional. Things were a bit easier for me in that I don't like going to bars one bit. House parties were a lot of fun in college but as an adult my social drinking would almost always involve a few friends hanging out at someone's house. Quality time with good friends if they are drinking and you're not is just as good. For those who are into the bar scene, ummm, maybe try pot? But overall, I'd say that if alcohol makes a boring activity tolerable, it obviously makes sense to do something that you actually enjoy instead.

For all of you wanting to stop drinking, just give it a go. It may take a month or two to delete the habit, but it will happen.

BUT, the tests were administered based on self-reported symptoms which were then evaluated by a staff member to decide whether a test was warranted. This absolutely blew my mind.

This kind of avoidable subjective decision making should not be happening in a clinical trial. All participants should have been tested at regular intervals.

- L-Tyrosine to keep your dopamine levels up.

- ALCAR + ALA to reduce neurotoxicity and tolerance formation

- Magnesium and Zinc for muscle tension, including jaw clenching if you're prone to that.

And for Aderall, you can take Vitamin C at any point to rapidly flush it out of your system.

These things are a game-changer for quality of life and sustainability of stimulant medication. For example, with the ALA+ALCAR stack, I don't get any withdrawals when I take breaks. No fatigue, malaise, nothing. I would have given up on adderall a long time ago without these things.

Let's assume deaths for older people haven't changed so the increase is entirely among the younger group.

x: younger y: older

1.4x + y = 1350 x + y = 1319 0.4x = 31 x = 77.5 (younger 2020) 1.4x = 108.5 (younger 2021) y = 1241.5 (older 2020 and 20201)

So assuming no increase in non-COVID deaths in the older group, we have 77.5 deaths in 2020 and 108.5 deaths in 2021 in the younger demographic. The actual numbers would be even lower since there have obviously been deaths in the older population.

Unless I am embarrassingly wrong on the calculation, these figures don't make sense. The source says this 40% increase figure is based on his life insurance customers who are “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”. This being just among his policy holders could explain the tiny absolute figures in the younger group. But where are the numbers for the older group coming from? His statement doesn't exclude the possibility of policies for ages < 18 and > 64. But if that's a small fraction of their customer base, it would imply a huge death rate for the older policy holders.

These numbers seem very fishy. Even if his older members are dying at astronomical rates and his numbers are correct, this is about as far from a representative sample as you could get and cannot be extrapolated to the general population. And I assume that's what the source means when he says "the increase in deaths represents huge, huge numbers."

By the way, I am not implying that there hasn't been an increase in non-COVID deaths among the young and old in these last two years. We know that's the because there is actually real data on this that the article could have included.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266194/net-income-of-pha...

This shows three years of Phizer netting in the neighborhood of 20 billion. This year they've hit 20 billion net in the first nine months. Let's see in a couple of weeks by how much they've blown away their previous record of 22 billion.

Ultimately, is there any reason to pretend these profits have nothing to do with the vaccine?

I have the COVID vaccine but that doesn't mean I am not concerned about potential long-term effects that we know nothing about. That, and the possibility of original antigenic sin [0] permanently screwing over our ability to mount an effective immune response to novel strains.

What justification is there for pushing a non-sterilizing vaccine, that doesn't prevent spread, on non-vulnerable populations?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

- Pfizer net income for the twelve months ending September 30, 2021 was $19.889B, a 149.36% increase year-over-year.

- Pfizer annual net income for 2020 was $9.616B, a 40.91% decline from 2019.

- Pfizer annual net income for 2019 was $16.273B, a 45.91% increase from 2018.

- Pfizer annual net income for 2018 was $11.153B, a 47.66% decline from 2017.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PFE/pfizer/net-inc...

And also, why conflate smoking with vaping? They are completely different in terms of immediate and lingering odor, as well as second hand effects.

After many years of on and off heavy smoking, I would say that the best best practice is actually not smoking weed every day. I think there are some amazing benefits to weed, but for me they all but disappear with enough tolerance.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ppp-gr...

I do drink plenty of water, maybe too much even, am in good shape, and have no medical conditions of any kind. Weed greatly exacerbates this issue for me, probably from the fact that it reduces blood pressure, but this can still happen when I'm not smoking for extended periods.

Recently, I figured out a way to short circuit the onset of a dizzy spell. Hyperventilating completely nips this in the bud, likely because it increases blood pressure [1]. I'd recommend trying this technique to anyone that's otherwise healthy (I am not a doctor) and coping with this issue.

[1] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.HYP.00000523...

Grinder surely made much more from data sales than the 6.something million Erous it was find. The paltry fines under GDPR do nothing to dissuade this behavio. That's been a recurring theme in previous HN discussions on this topic.

Right now, I would posit that these low penalties are for show. Governments don't want to lose the economic benefit of having these companies operate in the EU and the general public can be satisfied that their governments are on top of the issue.

So, working as intended?

I get what your meaning but this phrasing cracked me up.

Taking money from people with expectation of value, while not providing that value is Fraud.

Woaaah there buddy!

Did you read the all of the OP's post? He's never been fired and gets middling to good performance reviews. Continuing to pay his salary implies that the company it's getting a fair deal. This is obviously not fraud in any legal sense.

Characterizing this dynamic as "White Collar corruption" is a totally warped, an in my view, offensive. If there is any corruption in this scenario, it's on the side of the employer. If the OP's situation is widespread within the company, failing to recognize and remedy it could very well be a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the shareholders. Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty positive that ignorance or incompetence is not a legally valid excuse.

In my view, the real issue here is that salaried employees are almost never compensated in proportion to actual value that they generate. A flat rate arrangement, assuming no significant bonuses, results in a zero-sum game with diametrically opposed incentives for the two parties. The employer maximizes value by trying to as much work as possible from the employee. And the employee maximizes his hourly rate by working as little as possible, with the ultimate goal of infinte dollars per hour at 0 hours worked.

The incentives become perfectly aligned if the pay is based on some objective measure of generated value. Moreover, I would would argue that it would be fairly straightforward to come up with a logical metric for every single position within a company that generates revenue. These can be proxies instead trying to estimate revenue growth or cost reduction to every single employee. Moreover, the dollars tied to a given position's reward metric would be subject to market rates the same way that salaries are today.

TL;DR - Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Mr. Kellog, the Corn Flakes guy, in the late 1800s led a zealous crusade against masturbation. Eventually, he somehow managed to sell doctors and the public on circumcision as the answer to one of the hot-button social issues of the day: preventing teen boys from having the occasional wank. Freud would have likely deduced that Kellog himself was a hopeless and compulsive fapping addict.

All jokes aside, I have some friends who feel very resentful about not having had a choice in the matter. And other friends who strongly defend the practice, also likely due to not having had a choice in the matter.

My thinking is that American foreskins will remain on the chopping block until a majority of doctors change their views.

On the other hand, a reasonable argument against the wealthy elite would be that they are likely to have the most significant influence on preempting policy that could help deal with climate change. They would have the most vested interest in maintaining the status quo, due to their positions at the head of industry, and their children would suffer the fewest consequences of unmitigated climate change.

But then again, there is also a significant number of voters, at least here in the United States, who aren't going to get behind any policy that may cost jobs and increase energy prices in the immediate term. And then there's China, putting out 27% of total global carbon emissions.

So as convenient as it would be to just blame the rich, climate change is simply too broad an issue to put on the shoulders of any one group or entity, even China.

Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that Rittenhouse was trying to avoid conflict and run away?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s

The only "cheat code" here was used by the prosecutor to bring this case to trial.