yes, actually yes. I would do it differently though, I would use sodium and burn it in water to create the particulate matter, this would accomplish more than one goal, it would block a percentage point of the Solar energy and would percipitate into the ocean water deacidifying it. If done xorrectly, maybe as NaK alloy it can also be used to generate power while burning in water.

no, the goal is keeping power and gaining glory by restoring the old ussr back and then some. The fact that it is done by using the criminal element as well as the regular army just shows how unprepared the dictator is.

the Germans occupied Ukraine, actually occupied the house of one of my grandfather. What is your stupid point?

No, he chose war in Europe, this is the next step for putin. You didn't really think the ruzzian murderers that make up their armed forces will be allowed to return back to the motherland alive, did you? The next target is Estonia or Latvia, then Poland and the rest will follow. Regardless what anyone thinks, ruzzia has learned to fight the next type of war and nobody is ready for this except for one nation, that is holding the orcs - Ukraine.

Bandera is a national hero, fighting for Ukrainian freedom from occupiers, the ruzzians spout nonsense. Ukrainians are actually proud that Bandera was a Ukrainian. If the ruzzians went to war against the USA they would call George Washington a nazi, whatever.

I just landed in Warsaw, taking a ride to Ukraine right now. There are dirt poor people living in Ukraine, I am sure, probably some older folks are. That said, I work with over 950 people from Ukraine, vast majority of them living in Ukraine, over 200 people in software development, over 600 in support, many sales and other roles. Half of them own their homes, half of them have their own cars, everyone owns a computer, power banks, generators, satellite communication equipment, most also have fiber at home. They dine in nice restaurants, food is not worse than anywhere.

Here is a link to one of many restaurants I frequent when in Odessa for example. https://maps.app.goo.gl/GvHDHh...

Here is one in Kiev https://maps.app.goo.gl/JSnpEW...

one in Mykolaiv https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sd72r6...

here is a shopping mall in Harkiv https://maps.app.goo.gl/3osPzi...

You should maybe find out a few things before typing something, though we know that paper tolerates everything.

I run a few companies, more than 950 people are working with me, I have a few system administrator, it is a serious matter. Eventually there are people in any company that have access and control that really allows them to do damage that is massive enough that the very survival of a company is in question. This immediately has an effect on all of the clients, all of the people working for the company, partners, families, infrastructure contractors, quite a few things really. This type of behavior really compromises what people think about IT professionals everywhere.

schooling is used to control how kids think and act so they follow 'society values'. Governments who do this want to make sure that their political and religious beliefs are instilled in the next generation of voters for the rest of their lives.

No they aren't.

  Just don't sign it if you think it is one sided. However - duress is something completely different: a contract signed at gunpoint is of course not valid.

You're either being a troll or the most naive person I've ever met.

Why do.you think people sign work contracts for $7.25? Sign non-competes after separation without compensation? Sign training payback contacts? One-sided notice agreements?

I mean... Nobody's holding a gun to their heads, is there?

Do they do it of the goodness of their hearts?

Spoiler: there's always some kind of power gradient involved. Even the obvious answer "because they're stupid" is a power gradient. And so is a gun, or any other duress situation.

It's a gradual development, and theres's imit to what we will accept as "within personal responsibility of the receiver" or will reject as "abuse of the giver".

First of all, that's not one of the human rights. it's just a general principle of private law.

Second, neither law, nor principles of law/nor human rights even basic ones, are absolute. They all find their limitation somewhere, typically in other laws or human rights.

I can't believe I even need to explain this basic fact of civic knowledge to you; what are you, a 4th-grader?

No. The people who made excuses as they watched their children die of Covid.?
The people who act like one and a half million people didnâ(TM)t die during Covid and wonder why there was a labor shortage?
These people literally wonâ(TM)t believe whatâ(TM)s right in front of them. They are completely lost.
Watching a loved one die will mean nothing to them, sadly. I have some of them in my extended family and itâ(TM)s absolutely terrifying..

Cookie popus appeared on EU websites only 7-ish years ago, not 20+-ish.

I should know, I live there. And I was around since a lot longer than 2002 or 2018.

Apparently in our discussion "violation" is an unfortunate word, as you seem to associate that with something bad, undesirable. (As your word "excuse" hints at.)

A "violation" is not nexessarily bad;
but feel free to use "limitation" insteadin your head, if it's easier for you...

Anyway, to the point: it doesn't matter whether something "excuses" something else or not, as this isn't about "violation" being something bad. It's entirely about the concept od 'llimiting" the amount of power that an individual in a poaition of relative advantage can exert over another individual.

We already have those kind of limitations in place elsewhere in contract related laws, and everyone agrees that they're good (e.g. when signing a contract under duress, or when requiring that a contact not be one-sided only).

OTOH everyone also agrees that there should be no limitation when the contract is balanced and there's no power gradient, e.g. when buying a benign pack of candy in a candy store.

What we have here is something in between: nobody is "under duress" strictly speaking, but the situation is anything but balanced. Somebody is (ab)using their position of relative power.

So now the discussion can't be about the principle of it - we've already established that, either way, the principles are sound and within the realm of something we already do.

Instead it's about where to draw the line.

As such, your comment from earlier does nothing to clarify or sustain a point.

"Freedom of contract" isn't holy you know. It is already "violated" by a lot of other provisions deaigned tomprotect those who are at a systematic disadvantage.

This has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production a.k.a. socialism.

If the courts grow a pair and say "it's obvious the lighter isn't your main product, the ticket is" - because it is/i indeed obvious - then this won't fly.

It would really be a delight for a reporter to have one of those boxes that echoes someoneâ(TM)s words back at them a half second after they say them.
Ask a touchy question and then just hold it up and watch Trump go insane.