anticodon

Historically, all terrorism was created and funded by USA. USA subsists on chaos in other countries. There's no benefit for Russia in this fictional terrorism, also we don't have it in our cultural code.

For the US and UK it was always a preferred modus operandi: to make other people and nations fight for them. Like before WW II they explicitly stated that they would be happy to see both USSR and Germany mutually annihilate themselves, so that US can come to what is left and occupy the remnants.

Islamic terrorism is also a child of USA.

Can you distinguish burned or blown up Ukrainian tank from Russian tank?

Not to mention that Spanish media even used footage from video game to "illustrate" the fake news about the war.

One negative (and intended) side-effect: USA as usual will reap all benefits from this war. Probably it is the reason why it pumped so much weapons into Ukraine and refused to discuss security questions with Russia prior to February 24.

Sanctions announced by EU will immensely weaken EU economy and enrich USA by forcing EU to buy more expensive US oil and gas. Also, US sanctions are laughable compared to EU. E.g. EU cannot sell Airbus produced in Europe to Russia. USA can sell their Boeings. US jets fly over Russia, EU - cannot. Etc, etc.

All in all, this looks like an attempt to plunder the biggest economy after they teared USSR apart.

> This makes no sense, no one is alleging Mexico is under Russia’s thumb so this makes no sense.

This makes no sense, because no strong independent sovereign country (there're very few of them in the world, about 5-6) will allow foreign troops to land in the neighboring country.

If Russia would send troops under any pretext in any situation to Mexico, USA would start a World War III.

> Otherwise, Russia itself wouldn't have stamped out the Latin script and forced those minority languages, already few in number, to use Cyrillic in the 2000s.

What languages are you talking about?

Meduza is a rusophobic media with 100% foreign funding that was created with one sole purpose: disseminate Western propaganda in Russian population.

It's in every their article. It's a trashcan of the worst and dumbest pro-West propaganda, I don't know how any sane person would refer to it.

It's not a journalism, they don't even have journalists. They're producing anti-Russian fake news.

BTW, even that they do poorly, I know people that unsubscribed from Meduza because they're tired from it's paranoid rusophobic hatred.

> Even Russian speakers do not always want to associated themselves with Russia.

You cannot speak for all of us.

Neither doesn't Russia and Armenia.

> rioting over the price of heating their homes.

Even though the price of LPG had doubled and that supposedly caused riots, even the new doubled price is way lower than price of LPG in Europe and other parts of the world.

Mate, research who controls Kazakh natural resources: it's western corporations. It allows them to extract resources and money from Kazakhstan without paying much back. And it's a lot of money and valuable natural resources like copper and uranium.

Same was happening in Russia in 90s: western corporation took control of all Russia's natural resources using phony agreements and corrupt businessmen (like Mikhail Khodorkovsky). E.g. in 90s people in Russia were dying of hunger, but oil was sold to the West by the price of water.

When Putin came to power, first thing he had done is returning control over natural resources. That's exactly the moment when all the West started vilifying him so badly.

Where do you get your oil from? From the free democratic Saudi Arabia? West happily ignores any atrocities as long as the flow of resources is under control.

Not only SA sells oil to US, but it also invests earned money into US government bonds. It's allows them to do whatever they want in their country, no matter how "undemocratic" it is. And the "free" press being oh-so-independent and honest, happily ignores that too, instead always pointing you to more convenient targets.

> It's not the US, Switzerland, Finland, the EU, nothing.

What these countries has to do in Kazakhstan? Russia and Kazakhstan has a treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...

Also, significant percent of population of Kazakhstan is Russian.

Winter war was successful in a sense that it moved Soviet-Finnish border away from Leningrad. A few months later when Germany attacked USSR and Finland joined it, that extra space saved Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) from total destruction.

It is not. If it wouldn't be true, why then US incessantly unleashes "revolutions" in all countries around Russia? Why US invests millions of dollars into rusophobic propaganda in all countries bordering Russia? Why US attempts to build military bases in all the countries that border Russia?

If it's all just a "cold war mindset".

> And yet, it's Russia and it's strong-arm tactics that are desperately trying to keep Kazakhstan's regime in power.

If Russia is so influential over Kazakhstan, why all natural resources and power plants in Kazakhstan belong to Western companies?

Why Nazarbaev had replaced Cyrillic alphabet with Latin? It was clearly a jab at Russia.

Kazakhstan was/is clearly under heavy western influence.

> Think about it: Russia is even sending it's paratroopers to Kazakhstan to stomp out unrest. Not the US. Not the EU. Not Switzerland. No, Russia.

What will US do if in case of civil unrest in Mexico, Russia will send troops to Mexico?

> The James Bond series have all been popcorn flicks for decades - I'm not sure using this particular example solidifies your point at all.

Yes, indeed. I went to see the last Bond because I was tired from my job and I wanted to see road races and big explosions. To see something simple that doesn't require brains to process. But it ended up so boring, that I've slept in an uncomfortable (for sleeping) cinema chair.

> Maybe where you are living only imports block busters.

I'm talking mostly about movies that you can see in movie theaters where I live. There are probably good movies, but they are not demonstrated in movie theaters and it's hard to know about them.

Well, to me American movie industry is dead. I can't name any good movie after 2010. It's extremely primitive now: no dialogs, just violence, giant explosions, and/or "diversity" that usually is extremely weird because it is unnatural and feels too forced.

E.g. I went to see the last Bond movie and slept the good portion of it. I never actually liked Bond movies, they're too shallow, but the last one was both shallow and dull.

I didn't spend my money to see the remake of Matrix - first comments from friends acknowledged what I suspected: it is a half-baked attempt to squeeze more money from the famous name without trying to make it interesting: why bother, when most of the audience will pay for the ticket anyway just because of the name.

European movies are bad only when they try to emulate Hollywood. Copying something that is already rotten, seldom results in good product. But sometimes there're pretty good European movies, when they don't try to copycat Hollywood.

I remember painful memories of late 90s and early 2000s. Until DosBox, it was impossible to run DOS applications under Linux.

DOSEMU was unusable. It couldn't run anything. I've wanted dos emulation to play my favorite DOS games, DOSEMU couldn't run a single game I've tried. Actually, as far as I remember, it couldn't run any DOS application that I've tried.

Even wine at that time had less issues than DOSEMU, although I suppose implementing windows API is more complex task.

They've probably done a lot in 20 years (and even changed the name/forked the project), but no, I'll stick with DosBox.

For me Linux is about freedom. Other systems might be better in UI/UX or performance (e.g. give more FPS in games for NVidia cards), but I remember the times when Microsoft dominated the IT world and it looked scary.

All corporations strive to fragment the market using non-compatible technologies and then to monopolize the market by consuming other fragments.

This strategy failed in the 90s with the arrival of Linux. Although many times I felt like the whole world will become Microsoft/Wintel, I think we barely missed.

Now, corporations are trying to do it e.g. via forcing everybody into the cloud and killing open protocols. E.g. I have several email accounts and I can't gather mail from all of my mailboxes in one application. Situation is even worse with Calendars. I have two jobs and also my own personal calendar server and I can't collect all my calendars in one app also. I have to routinely check Google Calendar, because even though I can add it to my Thunderbird Calendar, moved or canceled events changes are not propagating to Thunderbird. And I can't integrate Microsoft Outlook calendar into my Thunderbird at all.

I really don't want to rely on whims of one corporation. Also, regarding MacBooks: I remember when the touchbar had no alternatives and it is really awful. This is what monopoly means: you have to live with bad decisions. You have to pay absurd money for a piece of cloth or a roller for the desktop case.

Size of the country is also something to consider. Population of the whole Estonia is fewer than population of a single city in other country. Area of the Estonia is also minuscule.

What works for a tiny state isn't always appropriate for a big state.

Wouldn't stealing all the foreign assets of Venezuela by US and UK also affect the Venezuela economy?

> For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi.

Sometimes, I think that western people are so constrained by some limits in their heads. Like "freedom" is a freedom to choose Pepsi or Cola. I want neither. Or I want tea. Or the drink that is traditional for my culture.

But most of the time I communicate with americans, for example, I becoming convinced that freedom for them is more like: "Everybody drinks Cola and can freely visit Disneyland".

They're so immersed in their heads with the notion that they're in some kind God-chosen people, that they refuse the right of any nation to live by their own rules.

It's hard to convey this thought to me, especially in English. It would be too hard for americans to get it (if someone thinks our american junk food, junk Cola and junk democracy isn't good, they must be madmen and/or China/Russia/Iran spies!).

One tiny example of this. Several years ago while I was still reading reddit, in /r/Cambodia there was a post from american that said something like:

"I came to Cambodia several days ago and I'm impressed that you have neutral attitude to gays. But I don't understand why you don't promote LGBT everywhere. You should have LGBT parades and LGBT signs everywhere!"

I don't remember exact words, nor am I willing to find this exact post on the overloaded site of reddit. It was a shock to me that he arrived just a few days ago and already suggests that people that belong to a culture that is several times older than his, that they should live by his own weird rules.

And it's only one tiny example. Everyone should have McDonalds, even on Mt. Everest. Everyone must drink Coca Cola even in the remote Chinese village. Everyone must have not have their own opinion, but conform to the opinion of the "God-chosen nation".

> They definitely understood it, and they also understood that the USSR had 45,000 nuclear weapons pointed at your backyard.

And USSR understood that immediately after WWII end, USA planned to finish what Nazis started. Using also nuclear bombs which USSR didn't have at the time.

> Pol Pot was classic Marxist

It's not true. Pol Pot was a madman that created his own crazy theory that included parts of Marxism.

Where does Marx said that the city populations must be evacuated to the villages and teachers killed?

Anyway, the point is not in the details. My point is that USA meddling with politics in remote countries usually results in civil war, millions of dead people and economical decline that lasts for decades. It was true for Cambodia, it's true for Arab Spring countries, it's true for Ukraine which is the last known victim of USA backed revolution to this day. How many more victims this world needs?

Wikipedia is also a propaganda tool. Are [9][9][12][13][14] written based on historical documents? On the documents from the Soviet/Russia archives? I seriously doubt so. Pretty sure, they contain same bullshit as Solzhenitsyn books: "I saw 2 millions prisoners walking to the camp and it was only one of Stalin's forced labor camps"...

Also, one closely guarded secret nobody cares about: currently amount of people in prisons in USA is almost equal to the number of people sent to prisons and camps by Stalin.

So, who's more evil?

> how much freedom and how many lives they ruined with forced labour, it's even more egregious.

How many exactly? West operate lies of notorious propagandists like Solzhenitsyn (which never had access to any statistics).

E.g. in the books published on the west you can find absurd numbers like "Stalin sent two millions to the camp X", and later historians prove that you can't place more than 1200 persons in camp X, and there weren't enough houses even for the guards for such absurd amount of people and there weren't roads or waterways to transport that many people, and there're no even you know payment sheets for the number of guards required to guard two millions prisoners.

But the West continue to regurgitate the same old lies over and over because who would want to know the truth? The best truth is that USSR was evil, so every tiny piece of evidence saying otherwise should be well hidden from public.

It's not like in the contemporary Russia there are powers willing to open that truth either.

Pol Pot came to power due to USA backed coup. USA spies tried to kill king of Cambodia multiple times but failed. So, they taught and financed guerillas to oust the king by means of military coup and install a pro-USA government.

Pro-USA government didn't last long, and Pol Pot took its place.

And, BTW, the most well hidden secret is that USA supported Pol Pot and even provided financial support to his government.

USA: making a better world through revolutions, coups and military invasions for more than a century!

After working for years with both, I'd say that PostgreSQL is much more friendlier to the developer and more pleasant to work with. In any area: documentation, features, error messages, available SQL features, available extensions, available docs, available books.

One tiny example: I prefer to work with databases using CLI interfaces (mysql and psql).

psql CLI is a tool which is pleasant to use, has no bugs in the interface and it even gets improvements from time to time.

mysql CLI is awful to use (e.g. doesn't display long lines properly, has difficulties with history editing, etc) and looks like there wasn't a single improvement since 1996 (I'm sure there were, I just never felt the effect of such improvements).