tobychev @tobychev@qoto.org

@landetannien
var spårvagnen full? Eller ska ni ut till CMS/Alice/LHCb?

@kallekn
Efter att ha läst tråden fattar jag inte vad Lupan inte gillar med Radchenko och Charaps text, visst att tweets måste vara korta men något citat han invänder mot kunde väl kommit med?

Som det är nu får jag intrycket att Lupans största problem är att författarna inte haft som utgångspunkt att det är självklart att Ryssland borde gett upp villkorslöst...

@w7voa
Wow, the privacy of those responsible for surveillance capitalism is something the public should care about?

Really not seeing the story beside "USG tries to suppress non-US competition".

@freyablekman
Maybe they get you a contract for a nice apartment with just mildly expensive rent?!

@freyablekman
No salary range? No thanks! ;)

@ErikJonker
I think it's a big stretch to claim actively entering the conflict to destroy weapons not targeting you is "purely defensive".

As for "not escalatory", fully written out this means "Putin will not think it is escalatory" (that the poles shoot down his weapon). The plausibility of claim is pretty obvious once you see its full meaning.

A responsible argument in favour would start by acknowledging that attacking russian missiles from Poland is an expansion of the conflict but then explain why Russia's response would be limited and the cost entirely bearable.

To pretend going to war is entirely safe is deeply dishonest.
@geopolitics

@kjhealy
I feel like with some tweaks this can be turned into the first verse of a punk song, which has the advantage that you can use "fuck nuance" in the chorus.

That would admittedly limit where you could go in the second verse, but I feel the gains are worth it.

@guacamayan
Ha, that's darkly funny! Does the US have homeland security in all its colonies?
@pieist @AnnemarieBridy

@kallekn
Quotes from the press release: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-220-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

@kallekn
> After receiving information from the ZNPP about the drone attacks, the IAEA experts stationed at the site went to three affected locations. They were able to confirm the physical impact of the drone detonations, including at one of the site’s six reactor buildings where surveillance and communication equipment appeared to have been targeted. While they were at the roof of the reactor, unit 6, Russian troops engaged what appeared to be an approaching drone. This was followed by an explosion near the reactor building.
[...]
> While the team so far has not observed any structural damage to systems, structures, and components important to nuclear safety or security of the plant, they reported observing minor superficial scorching to the top of the reactor dome roof of Unit 6 and scoring of a concrete slab supporting the primary make-up water storage tanks.

On the one hand, striking surveillance equipment with small drones that does little damage to the building structure does seem plausible.

On the other hand, having the Russians engage and destroy an approaching drone as the IAEA watches seems like a _suspiciously_ convenient propaganda image.

But if this is a false flag, that means the Russians have somehow produced a convincing false flag, but recalling their efforts in the leadup of the invasion, this is not something one should just accept that they can.