tobychev @tobychev@qoto.org

@Mabande
Undrar om ICJ ser detta val som varandes i linje med deras preliminära beslut i processen om folkmord ?
@pettter

@etchedpixels
You very very rarely have the option to *just* blow up the server though, in practice what you get to choose is blowing up part of a building, which seriously risks killing people.

And even that is under the extremely permissive scenario where you know for certain the exact physical location of the particular server, more realistically you have to completely blow up an *entire building* or even several buildings to have a reasonable chance of taking out the intended server.

In other words, the likelihood of directly killing someone is very high with a physical strike, but simply impossible when you wipe it remotely.This seems like an important distinction to me.

The two options are only comparable when conditions are such that blowing up the server and physically seizing it out of the rack are almost equally challenging.
@GossiTheDog

@erikdelareguera
Reinfeldt som fick skäll för att han inte tog hand om sin disk på regeringskansliet gjorde det bättre!

Uffe borde bara skickat länk till go royals fika låt...
@jajo

@Ruth_Mottram
Why? With 20 years of hindsight I can't think of a single example of where a military sub would have been useful for the defence of mainland Denmark.

For surface sea surveillance airborne radar does it better and is more flexible, and you can cover your own underwater region with fixed listening points if submarines is a real concern.

In general I think that military procurement in NATO is pretty lacking in strategy and vision. If Denmark had built an artillery force for all the sub money that would have been an extremely useful switch for Ukraine, but instead it seems you built a new surfaces ships. I guess those are for fighting the Russian navy in the north sea, a capability that doesn't seem so critical considering Ukraine is fighting said navy pretty successfully from land.
@anderspuck

@m_clem
Have you seen "The Stability of Immigration Attitudes: Evidence and Implications" by Kustov, Laaker, and Reller (2021)?

Abs reads:"Do voters have stable immigration views? While any account of immigration politics must make an assumption about whether underlying attitudes are stable, the literature has been ambiguous regarding the issue. To remedy this omission, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of the stability and change of immigration attitudes. Theoretically, we develop a framework to explicate the temporal assumptions in previous research and find that most studies assume attitudes are flexible. Empirically, we draw on nine panel data sets to test the stability question and use multiple approaches to account for measurement error. We find that immigration attitudes are remarkably stable over time and robust to major economic and political shocks. Overall, these findings provide more support for theories emphasizing socialization and stable predispositions rather than information or environmental factors. Consequently, scholars should exercise caution in using changing context to explain immigration attitudes or in using immigration attitudes to explain political change."

@m_clem
This one seems like a good one to end the whole thread on, or else to pivot into being a research methods thread :)

I remember having seen a similar story a while ago, and since this is from 2022 this is hopefully simply the same thing showing up again (meaning things could have improved since).