so you claim to speak in representation of "the people of discernment", and i'm the one who should worry about not being taking seriously. seriously?

it "was" indeed too many empty and silly words. you made a blanket statement to disparage some figures supported by nothing but the red herring of their source, which was stated clearly enough, without any reason as to what is supposed to be wrong with them. if you felt there is something wrong then it was perfectly possible to challenge them with arguments or alternative sources, or provide any sort of reflection. yet apparently you were only interested in conveying how "little discernment" i have with nothing better than positioning yourself as a representative of people with "real discernment". and now you double down pretending to "be right" with even more baseless blanket derision. that's really silly, and ... actually sort of reinforces the point i was making in the first place.

these figures come from sources on the net, an algorithm just fetched and formatted them. instead of all the drama you can check them. do you dispute them, or not?

btw who is this "we" you are invoking? in the name of who do you think you are talking? maybe a freudian slip? do you feel that your own discernment is not enough to make the point?

i don't think those numbers are hallucinated since they were consistent in several more detailed answers, and corroborated by deepseek. then again all such numbers should ofc be always taken with a grain of salt and it seems good enough for a rough cursory estimate.

btw, i don't give a flying fuck about your opinion either, specially as you come across as a prepotent jerk with no substance in the brain, but that doesn't mean i have to express myself as a prepotent jerk with no substance in the brain would too, so ... have a nice day!

well, tfa says phones and laptops are not allowed during the examinationa which are in person, i guess this would only target institutional computers. but, true, it doesn't really make much sense. in any case:

... the guardian and bloomberg quoting each other's stories without any actual references? that's sooo weird ...

yes, we know. just for curiosity, could you provide a sample link of anti-zionist propaganda?

btw, some interesting facts from chatgpt:

us vs rest of the world:
  Monthly Viewers: 238million vs 2.2–2.4billion
  % Global Viewers: 9–10% vs 90–91%
  YouTube Channels: 1.78million vs 58+million (est.)
  Total Videos Uploaded: Est. 1.4–2 billion vs 13.4+billion (of 14.8B)
  % of Total Videos: 10–12% vs 88–90%
  Videos Removed (Q4 2023): 788,000 vs 8.6+million
  % of Global Takedowns: 8–9% vs 91–92%

maybe the petty domestic narrative differences between both factions of the decaying american elite and their gullible fanbases isn't really what the world spins around?

it isn't.

they don't. they probably use a package (which maybe uses a package ...) that declares this obsolete permission. this permission was intended for google signed apps only and its authorization is taken for granted, never requested to the user.

read_gservices is a signature level permission (only granted to google signed apps, which is why the user will never be asked to give it to any app, nor can any other app really use it) and is btw deprecated.

aliexpress has a specific app version for russia because of sanctions and restricted access to google play so they might be working around that using older modules and dependencies that still use it.

btw, gsf ids are only really persistent on google servers as they represent the combination of a google account and a device, the device identifier is cleared with a factory reset and a new one will be generated on first access to a google account. you also don't need this permission to find the gsf id.

just stating some facts, ofc not questioning that russia might have other (more sophisticated) ways to track its users, as do many other countries.

what's a suspicious number of rubber chickens exactly?

ftr: the way this works is that an attack on russia's nuclear capability with the obvious implication of nato/britain provokes russia into striking back, and hopefully in a strong way that allows the ignition of ww3. this is the aim: expand the war in ukraine, which is otherwise practically lost for nato, into a global conflict that can be maintained in time which would inevitably drag the us in. it is a desperate and reckless move.

look: the russians have been using 6 of these bombers to strike deep into ukraine with conventional weapons, and not even at full payload. only six of them. by the most optimistic estimates this attack only disabled 10 (and that's an overestimation, but still). they had 58 total. what this means is that this attack has had absolutely zero impact on the capability of russia to keep hitting deep inside ukraine with conventional weapons and these same bombers.

they could have chosen many other targets: refineries, amo depots, naval fleet, infrastructure, whatever. the potential for damage would have been huge, possibly not very signifficant in the bigger context of the ongoing war but still greater than zero, and the media effect would have been the same or even better. but no, they specifically crossed this specifically red line targeting strategic nuclear bombers (ffs, how hard is this for you to grasp?) to elicit a very specific response.

and russia will respond, no question. the clamor in all layers of society and elite is unanimous. they have to, but hopefully not in the way that the warmongers, the provocaturs, intended. if they do that we're all pretty screwed.

yeah, the problem with that is that the consequences of these changes are very hard to predict, and they're happening very, very fast (in evolutionary terms), many species simply have no time to adapt. a barren desert is also a "natural habitat", and has also "life", but you're not going to want to live there ...

i have had the same experiences lately in certain areas, and my garden is full of all sorts of bugs and snails, and birds are chirping literally 24/7... but i cannot compare with 10, 20 years ago, and anyway that wouldn't diminish the gravity of sensible reductions having actually been measured on vast other areas. however annoying, insects are quite at the bottom of the entire food chain, if anything they should be thriving when predators are driven out. this is unexpected. it might mean that as bigger predators are driven out the smaller critters thrive and simply exhaust their food reserve. anyway, it can't be good news for those ecosystems.

i admit i have no more answers that would compell you to understand (or admit?) that any attack on nuclear assets is a huge escalation threat under any circumstance is out of discussion and spelled out in black and white. it doesn't get clearer than that. the fact that they were loaded or not is just naive, completely irrelevant to the matter.

you might hold interesting views about the issue i'd ofc like to read, but i see no point in discussing it further on such a basic misunderstanding (or misrepresentiation?) of how nuclear deterrence works.

why would i even bother ... nice user name.

then maybe just don't? if you actually have something sensible to say then you do not need any insults. apparently you haven't. no surprise, really.

that's not really relevant. those are the bombers you would use if you needed to deliver nuclear payloads, so any attack on them is an attack on your nuclear capability, which is a no go and this has been clear in every strategic arms agreement since salt, half a centruy ago. btw russia recently readjusted their nuclear use doctrine where afaik any attack with conventional weapons on any nuclear facility, asset or equipment is explicitly defined as suffcient cause for a nuclear response. ofc we knew about this, it was even in the media.

putin is just now under huge internal pressure to respond to this, drastically. on one side such an attack can hardly go without a response (can you imagine what, say, the us would do in a similar scenario?), on the other this is exactly what this is: a provocation. i hope that putin doesn't fall for it.