So when Ukrainian regime attacked separatists in the Donetsk and Lughansk regions in 2014, were they lacking basic humanity in your eyes? Just asking.
137 karma · joined July 22, 2019
Meanwhile there is a sprawling military plant Artem nearby, which has been a target of multiple Russian missile strikes.
The Russian MoD said the hospital was hit by a malfunctioning Ukrainian anti-missile, but if you don't believe that, what do you think is more likely: that the military plant was the target and a Russian missile missed it, hitting a corner of the hospital building instead, or that the hospital was the target, but the missile failed in its attempt to kill scores of children being treated for cancer, which would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable?
This doesn't add up. There cannot be only one death from a strike on hospital.
Source?
I don't follow your logic here.
>Did you read the bit where Tetyana Aksenchuk
Again, "Nayirah" "saw" Iraqi soldiers murdering babies.
>drones attacked the ambulances killing a diver. At least the Russians are quite imaginative with their slaughtering the innocents.
Here is a post[0] about a paramedic and an ambulance driver murdered by Ukrainian drone near Sudzha, it gives their photos and names. Are you saying now that "Ukrainians are quite imaginative with their slaughtering the innocents"? Were these selfless people used for "target practice" or what?
Here is another report of Ukrainian attack on firefighting car and on ambulance[1].
The text in Russian channel doesn't include pedestrians.
That's just dishonest.
There were questions concerning how Kherson was captured so easily. Orysia Lutsevych, a member of the Chatham House, a British-based think tank stated that "Russia had its agents infiltrated into the Ukrainian security forces". On 1 April 2022, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed the head of the Security Service of Ukraine's Kherson regional branch and a general as traitors. Zelenskyy described their actions as that of "anti-heroes", and that he "...had trouble determining where their Fatherland is". An aide to a general was arrested for handing over maps of minefields to Russian forces and helping coordinate Russian airstrikes in the region." [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kherson#Treachery_an...
However, the text translates as
Residents of this area, which is marked with a red zone on the map, in these areas our crews will destroy *any transport* - this is one of our key goals.
Therefore, we warn everyone: ordinary civilians, be careful! Do not travel by personal transport in these areas, it can be extremely dangerous.
And "Nayirah" "saw" Iraqi soldiers murdering babies.
>I looked at a Russian channel
Which one?
>the thing maybe a bit propagandised
It wouldn't be the first time in Ukraine either. Far from the first time.
"He [the deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee] also accuses her [fired human rights chief Lyudmila Denisova] of having focused too much on media work, and on describing sexually motivated crimes in gratuitous detail as well as the raping of children in occupied territories. However, some of these accounts, he said, had not been verified, which had harmed Ukraine's reputation and distracted media attention from other, proven crimes and problems."[0]
If western media is telling us that something like the events from Brereton Report [1] (where Australian special forces were killing Afghani civilians) are happening in Kherson, there better be proofs.
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/why-ukraines-human-rights-chief-lyudmy...
When I looked at anyhow, I remember thinking that it's just a way to emulate in Rust the kind of error propagation that C++ has with exceptions, but manually with ?.
What's your take on this?
In the bridges between Crimea and Kherson that weren't blown up to stop Russians.
[0] https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Україна_понад_усе
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170206104859/http://24tv.ua/sl...
In C++, you can't overload operators for built-in types and template parameters are normally constrained:
auto f(std::integral auto x) noexcept
{
return x+x;
}
>"Operations on basic types" can now invoke UB
They always could. I don't want this conversation to become about Rust vs. C++, I'd gladly use Rust when where is appropriate task.
>needs a concrete example to discuss
Write a new post when you come up with a bunch of good examples)
It was a poor choice of words. You can replace 'throwing functions' with 'throwing code'. There is plenty of code that is guaranteed not to throw -- starting from operations on basic types and ending with noexcept functions if we are talking about C++.
>The compiler won't warn you when this happens.
It will if you write an asserting in the code that relies on a function not throwing:
static_assert(noexcept(f()));
Isn't it too much clutter? What if a function has three arguments? You'd need three generic parameters for their errors.
Isn't it too low-level? Why not define instead cleanup/recovery through RAII and occasional try/catch for maintaining tricky invariants, and have no need to manually propagate errors?
>`.map_err(Wrapper)?` is way more convenient than catching and throwing a wrapper
If you only wrap exceptions on the API boundary it might be more ergonomic than having to manually propagate errors inside the API implementation and map them anyway.
>you're in the middle of modifying it and currently it doesn't hold its own invariants because you haven't finished restoring those yet
Sometimes it's better to call throwing functions and get needed data before modifying the private data, sometimes it's time to use try/catch. Is it happening often?
>Exceptions make the other error handling patterns too unergonomic
But so does packing valid data and errors together. Imagine you need to call f(h1()) and f(h2()) where h1() and h2() return the same data type for valid data but different types of errors. What do you do?
>the post lacks a concrete example
Yes, having a specific example seems to me to be the best way to discuss design tradeoffs, but you did the second best thing -- you started with declaring your assumptions (exceptions are disguised return values and optimizing ergonomics of passing errors through f(g(x)) is important) with both of which I happen to disagree)
Perhaps it's only good because their income from coffee was low due to inability to bypass parasitic intermediaries.
"Explicit and mandatory handling is desirable for most errors." -- that depends on the domain. Quite often all the caller needs is to cancel whatever it is doing and propagate the error. In this case why do we need a detour into the f() function in your example?
From the part of your essay that you linked to:
"Potentially leaving your data in an inconsistent, half-way modified state." -- this is just not the case with RAII.
"No one wraps every line in a try-catch." -- no one needs to.
My interpretation of 'almost' is quite different from yours. To me it sounds like "Russians are genetically preconditioned, but I didn't say that". Of course he did. Try replacing Russians with Afro-Americans or Jews and see if it sounds okay to you.
As for how a Russian sees it, remember that 85 years ago Germans decided that we are racially inferior and they need our living space[0][1]. 26 million of Soviet citizens died as the result[2]. Try comparing that number with the number of deaths in any present day war. Personally, my grandmother survived genocidal siege of Leningrad[3], where a million of civilians starved to death or died during evacuation, and another relative survived in a Nazi death camp.[4]
That should explain the 'nazi' part of my comment.
As for 'russophobe', that comes from the rest of his comment. It is factually incorrect and disparaging to Russians. I can unpack that if it's needed.
Here is a fun bit: note the use of the same word 'almost' to downplay Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 along with rebellions in previous centuries.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#Racial_ideology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...
Samuel Johnson in 1758: 'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.'[0]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21...