> Also, remember that NATO pushed Ukraine to start having civilians manufacture drones in their homes.

Dude.. Take your meds.

That may be true, but I have seen no evidence this is a routine thing (or a thing at all) like it seems to be for Russia. So far no Ukrainians have been indicted for such war crimes, whereas multiple Russians have been.

There's also the optics of it. If it were to be discovered that Ukraine's e.g. intentionally leveling residential areas around Moscow, support would instantly dry out. It makes no sense for Ukraine to waste ammunition on targets that hold no military value. It would accomplish nothing _and_ they'd lose the support of the rest of Europe.

>> Collateral damage is sadly unavoidable.
>Remember that when you see the next Ukrainian news that Russia bombed a random civilian building ... maybe that were not the target, that surely is not disclosed to not help the other side, but simply a collateral damage

I have no doubt that some of Russia's damage to civilian structures is accidental. I also have no doubt that the majority of it is intentional. There are currently 6 officials wanted by the ICC for war crimes in the Russia-Ukraine war, all of them Russian.

>so who do you know that is "intentional bombardment"?

See above.

I have no idea what you're trying to comment on. Did you click reply on the wrong post?

Striking production facilities, military personnel and supply lines in an invaders own territory is absolutely fair game. Collateral damage is sadly unavoidable. Not all drones will reach their targets, some targets will be based on invalid intel, and civilians might come in harms way as a result. That's a far cry from Russia's intentional bombardment of civilians and related infrastructure, though. One is a war crime, the other is not.

Considering reports now are that Russia's finally on the back foot, it seems Ukraine is doing what it needs to do. If they were wasting munitions on apartment complexes instead of strategic targets, that would not be the case.

How much of "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth is programming and how much looks a lot like pure math? What percentage of Computer Science grads can even read and understand book one?

We need two degrees. A vocation "programming" degree and college/university degree in "Computer Science."

A pull request is not "downloading the source code," it's "submitting a suggestion for a change to the source code." It's someone requesting the project "pull" their changes into the project.

Not strictly true, historically. What we will probably see is the death of is 200-man IT projects. But they always failed anyway and were wasteful garbage so good riddance.

When you don't want 'those sorts' of people buying your house?

The case was won on a technicality. The core issue was never really addressed.

 

Other than MBAs, I can't think anyone with a masters... If you aren't going to make PhD at Standford, Harvard, etc. in the hard sciences, they give you a masters and tell you "nice try, now please move along." People either do a PhD (free because you are teaching or doing research) or start working after their BS. After four years of undergrad, you should have the tools you need. If you don't know something, you should be able to quickly teach yourself. A PhD means you can say you are the world's leading expert in something very narrow, and you were the the first person to find/discover/explain/prove/etc. something new. Very cool!

Someone is anthropomorphizing.

Oh come on now - the outcome of the training is literally transformative (c.f. GPT, i.e. generative pretrained transformer), hence not a copyright violation. </s>

(Ok, so this ^ was sarcasm. If any lawyer uses this as a defence in court I apologise for potentially giving them the idea. On the plus side, perhaps I could then sue them for copyright violation??)

Except that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much (~2.1:1) land area as the southern hemisphere, meaning rather more plants.

If you ever look at a 'zoomed in' graph of atmospheric CO2 levels the curve is distinctly saw-toothed, as levels rise and fall over the course of a year.

I'll just leave this here, lest some other ignoramus takes your blather too seriously.

In fact, have a snippet, for those unable / unwilling to follow links: "The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China’s emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth. The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."

Now, whilst I have seen breathless headlines suggesting that the US's total emissions are rising once more, allegedly as a result of Donnie's trumpie tantrums against wind and solar, I think I'd rather wait for the official historical figures (assuming they can still be collected) before engaging in too much finger pointing. Having said that however, and to engage in a little whataboutism, the most recent data I have easy access to shows that, despite being the global manufacturing centre of the world, China's CO2 emissions were 8.66 tonnes / capita in 2024, compared with 14.20 tonnes / capita in the US.

One is minded to point out the adages to "remove the plank from one's own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from the eye of another" and to "set one's own house in order, before it's too late"...