Never said NATO goes against international law, and i’m no specialist on the matter. Responding to attacks is indeed different from “pre-emptive strikes” which would be the “warmonger bs” i was talking about. I dont know if its pre-emptive or not, still hasnt read the article, only the tagline.
Defend doesn’t mean steal them in return. I hate seeing this confusion between “defending” and “attacking”. A way more fair comparison, whefe you could still defend “attack” while still making sense to only “defend” is : when someone strikes you, do you strike back? Though, as others corrected me, i thought this article was about actual strikes, not cyberfuckery. I admit it kinda applies less here, and my point was about general warmongering i hear about, and not this article.
Did not read it, thx for bringing this to my attention. With all the bs france military fuckers are saying about war, i just assumed it was the same. You can consider my point invalidated there.
Oh yes, Russia is far ahead on warmongering. Fuck their leaders and their military. But because someone does incredible evil shit does not mean you can start doing same kind of shit without being treated as such.
Well that was what happened during Cold War, and anyway it should not legitimate replying to cybershit with army strikes. Fuck Russia military ofc, but also fuck my country military spreading war talks
Sure in cold war, not in open war, which preemptive strikes seems to be.
That’s warmonger bullshit, do the first step in love, not in war Edit : did not read the article, thought it was about actual military strikes.
I didnt know but that’s the first Mickey7 post that i see that only checks the boomer vibes and not the gross or sexist ones, and i’m really impressed!
While i see the theoretical point of “if bad happens to men, it should happen to women too”, i don’t think it applies to heavily bad situations, especially with all the bad things already happening in disadvantage of women, and also especially war and especially from a pacifist perspective. Like no one says “if more women are raped than men, we should rape more men to make it fair”. I know it’s not the same situation its just a abusive comparison to strongly show the pertinence of a stance like “even if it’s not fair, the most people we can get out of horrible situations the better it is”.
Well if you have time to be a sexist bastard, i guess you would have time to learn about how to setup a Lemmy instance. These days, some even manage to be a president as a side job from being a complete fucker.
Yes
Most defectors go through China == it is easier to cross the border / defect in China != it is easy to cross the border to China / defect in China
From what i know , it is not easy at all to neither go to China, neither “defect” there, neither defect from authoritarian communist countries nearby. What you ‘showed’ me is people working in China, so controlled travel.
Based on what i know, i take your affirmation that it is easy to defect frop China either as ignorance, either as propaganda. If you have good info on the traveling part, please share so i and others can learn. On the original matter, i think it’s not worth debating further if we do not share a same-ish perception of facts.
Because they could have airlines if they accepted foreigns workers. That part os the NK government decision, good or bad. Let be clear : economic isolation of NK is a ofc product of both NK politics and UN embargos. But freedom of travel is not directly affected by UN. The first thing that stops NK people to travel is a border with armed guards, including with friendly states.
So they are barred from travel via plane because of NK decisions on airlines, and not banned from travel via other means (if we forget about frontier guards and all, ofc).
It’s not about forbidding NK people to leave the country, it’s about working.
Oh, so i misunderstood part of your question, thanks for explaining !
Indeed, i can’t find a way to see the Instance Sidebar on Voyager. I’ll try to dig deeper, but i think there is no option for this. If this interests you, here is the codebase for Voyager, where it is possible to suggest enhancements (though there is no guarantee they will be implemented).
Finding communities on a specific instance also does not work easily aside from your local instance, at least on Voyager.
For the part of your original post where you point out that the search option does not give any results of the instance about a specific country, there may be another explanation : for your instance A to show results of another instance B, they need to be federated. This works when one user of instance A subscribes to something on instance B : then instance A adds instance B to its list, and start referencing its content (though i’m not sure if it references everything, or only the content of the communities that users of instance A subscribed to). So if you see nothing, maybe it’s because no one connected to instance B on your instance A, so they’re not aware of each other. (though it seems that mander.xyz is federated to a looooot of instances, so it’s probably not this problem)
But honestly, it’s also because the search engine seems quite bad. I tried searching for instances names i’m sure my instance is federated to, and it did show some of their communities but far from everything, and not even all the ones i’m subscribed to.
Some info to sum up :
It seems Voyager is available on iOS, and i suppose it works the same than on Android. Here are how to achieve what i think you’re trying to do.
To find communities of your local instance, you can use Search/Explore and set the filter on the top-right to “Local” instead of “All”.
To explore the content (the posts) of your instance, whether you subscribed to communities or not, you can use the “Local” option (located with “Home” and “All” in the “Communities” section of the main interface).
To find the sidebar of an instance, you have to ‘go’ to the instance (by clicking its name somewhere, on a post or a search feed), and then there is a “Sidebar” option in the three-dots menu.
I don’t think that all clients are from the same codebase, and i think you’re not missing one big thing, rather just some specific knowledge on how to get to the things you’re looking for (to be fair, it’s not very intuitive).
From most interactions i had, it did not seem like a problem. Even tankies seem to be mostly individuals in a cult-ish thing rather than an armada of bots / automated answer.
Well, that’s precisely the point of view i dislike (which was not the pov of the article actually, it seems). Though the logic behind it is clear, though the legitimacy of self defense makes sense, especially in this case, and especially in the cyberconflict going on, and though i appreciate your straight to the point explanation, i still think that in the case of armed preemptive strikes (and not cyberattacks as in the article), it only makes sense from the point of view of country versus country, and not of peoples governed by more or less autocratic leaders. If your goal is for one side to prevail, then sure, striking first can make sense. If your goal is for the less civilians to get hurt, no matter their side, then it’s way less clear. Striking first could then be a less bad option, if it leads to less violence in the end, but i cannot see it being the best option.