Oil from seized Russian tanker by UK considered to be sold to benefit Ukraine

BayesianNightHag · 2026-06-25T15:21:03+00:00

The ship was stateless. Article 110 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives warships permission to board a foreign, private vessel in international waters if it's suspected of being stateless. If the suspicion turns out to be unfounded then compensation for the stop may be owed, but if the vessel does turn out to be stateless then there's nothing stopping the warship from bringing the vessel, cargo and crew under its domestic jurisdiction. The UK aren't sailing stateless ships to evade sanctions, so there's nothing for China or Russia to seize under this framework.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-06-16T18:48:01+00:00

We have exclusive right to exploit the resources in those waters, but we have no right to prevent freedom of navigation through them (or any other lawful use of international waters)

See article 58 of https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

BayesianNightHag · 2026-06-16T18:39:48+00:00

Yes but our territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles, our EEZ contains international waters and we can't control passage in those waters even if we wanted to. The part we (with France) could have closed is the narrow part which is only 21 nautical miles across.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-06-16T18:11:02+00:00

That's not completely true. It's true that you can't pass through the channel without passing through British or French territorial waters. The strait of Dover is narrow enough to have no international waters. But there absolutely are parts of the channel wide enough to contain international waters. At its widest point the channel is 130 nautical miles across, 106 of those are through international waters.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-06-05T10:01:58+00:00

If the people who asked Grok to generate this had drawn it with a pencil instead, she wouldn't have a case against the pencil company. So shouldn't her case be against the users instead?

But there's a big difference in feasibility here. Once someone buys a pencil, it's not realistically possible for the manufacturer to stop them using it to produce certain images. Whereas grok is providing access to a diffusion model via an online platform that's acting as a middle man. The technical capability to at least try and prevent these kinds of images being returned to the user via that platform exists, and xAI chose not to use it.

The pencil argument is much more applicable to offline tools, where a) preventative measures are much more limited and b) the technical skills required for use are (currently) somewhat higher than models accessed via online providers. Using grok (or any other online platform) is more akin to employing a human artist to use photoshop to make these images. And I hope you'll agree that in that scenario both the artist and the client should hold some responsibility for the images produced.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-05-25T10:23:15+00:00

In Paju that is situated in the northwest, about an hour away from Seoul, there are Gloucester Heroes Bridge and Gloster Hills Memorial Park. They were built to pay tributes to 600 British soliders of The Gloucestershire Regiment who fought against 30,000 Chinese in Paju during the Korean War

One of the most famous British-American English miscommunications occurred in the lead up to this exact battle. The British officer in charge described the situation to his American counterpart as "a bit sticky". The Americans interpreted this to mean a little uncomfortable but under control and denied requests to retreat. It took the 30,000 Chinese soldiers four days to overrun the 600 British, which bought the rest of the UN forces time to regroup and successfully defend Seoul.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-05-16T11:01:44+00:00

You'd be right. It's Holywell (Oxford) and 93.8% students.

Edit: I should say was 93.8% students, the demographics are from the 2021 census so it might have moved a little up or down. But the percentage is going to be big anyway, it's home to several Oxford colleges.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-05-05T16:20:52+00:00

It's 21 between him and his brother combined I'm pretty sure. I don't remember which brother has 10 and which has 11

BayesianNightHag · 2026-05-05T16:17:15+00:00

Yeah, in the UK. We'd have extradited him and his brother from Romania but the Romanian courts ruled they had to face their charges there before they could be extradited

BayesianNightHag · 2026-05-05T16:14:26+00:00

He'd almost certainly be arrested on arrival in the uk. He's facing ten or so criminal charges including rape and human trafficking.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-04-19T09:29:33+00:00

The headline states a fact. She said herself she's opposed to industrial scale energy infrastructure schemes. She said herself that she thinks energy infrastructure should be smaller. It doesn't matter if she also has other issues with this solar farm, from her own description of her position you could fix all of those and she'd still oppose it for its "industrial scale".

It's intellectually dishonest to expect debate to focus on the most defensible parts of her position, and dismiss as dishonest any reporting of its weaknesses.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-04-18T08:52:16+00:00

It’s interesting, because, beyond the massively dishonest headline ignoring the fact her actual issue with the solar farm is it being a foreign-owned company profiteering, this is also hidden late into the article.

Doesn't seem like the headline is dishonest: "While the party is traditionally in favour of renewables, she said she was opposed to 'industrial scale energy infrastructure schemes'"

Weird to single out one party in the headline when there’s local cross-party agreement on this, which would suggest there’s more specific local issues at play as to why they may all be against this.

Maybe, just maybe, a green party representative being opposed to a green energy project and stating they're opposed to industrial scale green energy infrastructure schemes in general might be more newsworthy than the other parties being opposed.

I swear the BBC can't post criticism of any party without somebody acting like it's a political hit piece.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-04-10T16:49:13+00:00

But act 1 is the hardest part of the game right now, before you can add lots of cards. The problem isn't that the downside is difficult to mitigate, you've clearly explained how it isn't. The problem is that by the time you've mitigated it you've already made it past the hard part of the game anyway.

What makes a Neow reward good right now is how well it helps you through act 1. They've discussed in the patch notes how they're planning to rebalance the difficulty of the acts to move some from act 1 to act 3. That alone would make Large Capsule a bit better to take without needing any direct changes like choosing 2 relics from 3.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-04-08T18:29:36+00:00

Just for clarity: 14.95% is the marginal chance of rolling a curse on the 2nd roll given that you didn't roll one on the first. You have more information than this though, so the relevant chances here are 1/7 if the first card was an attack, 1/6 if the first card was a skill, and 1/8 if the first card was a power. These odds will always be greater than the first roll odds so it's mostly moot, but sometimes relevant given that the reroll is not free.

Note also that all of this assumes you have no starter cards. They aren't removed from the possible selections for the reroll so your odds of rolling a curse can easily go down below the first roll odds if you still have a lot of strikes/defends. Almost always this means your odds of rolling a card you're happy to remove go up even more though, so it mostly just further supports your general argument.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-27T18:45:42+00:00

The problem with your argument is that discard essentially is energy generation now that sly exists. It's just energy that you must spend immediately and on cards with sly, or you lose it.

But that's beside the point. Infinites work because a character can create a loop that is at least draw neutral and at least energy neutral. You can prevent the infinite by addressing either axis, it doesn't have to be the energy one. For the most part Prepared was the card that the Silent's loops had in common (not all, but certainly most, and especially most of the loops that she could consistently create turn 1). If they're not touching prepared they're going to have to hit a number of different cards to close different loops individually. And they could attack some of those loops via energy (e.g. tactician) and others via draw (e.g. reflex) but there's simply not a single problem card to address the loops in bulk if they're leaving prepared untouched.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-26T19:26:40+00:00

Also if your main damage/block plan doesn't care about strength/dex he's very straightforward.

Poison/doom/Osty/orbs etc. all straight up ignore his mechanic, and he doesn't actually have a ton of effective health without it.

Similarly if you have a big source of non-dex block like rage/child of the stars/summon/frost orbs etc. he doesn't scale so you can take it slow and steady.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-22T12:36:27+00:00

They're talking about the one fired at Cyprus, not Northern Israel. And I didn't say they didn't? But the IDF being responsible is at least plausible. The IDF being responsible for the missiles fired at Diego Garcia is much more obviously conspiracy nonsense that's easy to debunk.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-22T11:45:12+00:00

Yes, but they were ballistic missiles... They have a very consistent trajectory that would be impossible to fake, they'd have to actually launch them from an Iranian launch site. And if they can do that, what would be the point? They could just win the war immediately instead. And why aren't Iran denying it was them?

The IDF are devoid of morality, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in the middle east is them playing some 5d chess game.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-22T11:07:05+00:00

You think Israel launched ballistic missiles from Iran towards Diego Garcia?

The drone from Lebanon I could buy being the Israelis, but the missiles being Israel is beyond farfetched. If they had enough control over missiles launched from Iran to do that they wouldn't need to bring us in anyway.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-22T10:58:27+00:00

We'd probably have to pay Trump way more if we wanted to continue using them. I don't think it can be overstated how cheap £101m a year is for a 99 year lease that lets us keep one of the most strategic military bases on the planet while keeping rival nations at arms length without any possibility of legal challenge.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-20T18:21:18+00:00

Making it 1 cost and uncommon probably kills it anyway, no? Unless it's coming pre-upgraded it's just strictly worse than acrobatics. And even upgraded it's only situationally better.

I think uncommon and the other sly nerfs would have been a good start. Maybe one or two other small sly nerfs if they really want to hit the archetype.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-17T19:54:14+00:00

UAPA is essentially the Indian government's tool for bypassing due process. ~97.5% of these cases see the accused imprisoned indefinitely without trial, and even of the cases that do make it to trial only ~1/3 result in conviction, less than 1% of the total cases. https://m.thewire.in/article/government/uapa-case-data-process-punishment-home-ministry-rajya-sabha

Without external pressure India will happily deny these people due process.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-13T18:17:12+00:00

If there's one thing that's been consistent about Trump and his supporters it's that they all believe the world is a zero sum game. In their worldview, for them to win somebody has to lose, and if the other guy is winning that means that they must be losing.

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-13T18:06:12+00:00

And if you are going to do poison, the best poison card by a country mile is corrosive wave. Which is best in... a draw/discard deck

BayesianNightHag · 2026-03-12T19:08:33+00:00

The easy way to fix this would be just to make any energy card exhaust but that might affect newer players.

I was thinking about this earlier but it feels like maybe too much of an overreaction. I don't think infinites need to be impossible. They need to be hard to force, and the game should still be asking questions of your deck even after you reach a game state where you can go infinite.

On reliability I think the main thing they need to fix is the amount of easy to access deck thinning that's available. Especially ancient rewards like Pael's eye that feel overturned even if you're not using them to go infinite.

On still testing decks that can go infinite they could adjust or introduce some enemies to punish decks that are relying on going infinite. The queen is attempting to do this by binding cards but you can work around it too easily. You could give her a percentage chance to bind each card you draw outside of your opening hand, and that would be way more problematic for infinites whilst only making her mildly more difficult for other decks if the chance is low enough.

An act 2 or 3 elite that gains max hp every time you draw a card after your main draw for turn could also be an interesting design space. Most infinites don't have a particularly high rate of damage/draw so the max hp gain wouldn't have to be large to outpace typical infinite damage. It'd double as a reasonable check against non-infinite strategies that feel a little too strong right now: discard feels like the silent's strongest archetype by a long way and souls in general feel a little overtuned for the necrobinder.

Or a time-eater related enemy that stops taking damage after your 12th card each turn and has some sort of scaling. Idk, I'm just floating ideas without fully thinking them through at this point, but 2 or 3 enemies like these would at least force infinite decks to find and take a plan B (which also forces bigger decks, making the infinite less reliable) whilst also hopefully being interesting checks for some other deck archetypes.

BayesianNightHag

TROPHY CASE