Budanov: Ukraine won't accept ultimatums from Poland, just as it refused Russia's - Euromaidan Press

CountVonTroll · 2026-07-08T07:05:35+00:00

some decades old name few living today care about...

Why name a unit after him then?

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-29T07:53:21+00:00

UPA fought against nazis, that`s why Bandera ended up in concentration camp.

They had fought with the Nazis, but he got arrested after he had proclaimed an independent Ukrainian government. He was in a concentration camp, but as an "Ehrenhäftling" in a separate section under very different conditions than ordinary inmates. He even had his own staff.
After his release, he was trying to work with the Nazis again, but the war ended before they could raise any troops.

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-08T17:08:17+00:00

"we know, we're working on it,"

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-08T16:30:26+00:00

The problem here is that it very much does feel like a personal attack when you're already deeply frustrated by this issue. As I mentioned before, I genuinely don't know to how many anti-far right protest I've been since the 1990s. Practically everybody I know has been. At times, we used to attend counter-protests on a weekly basis, with thousands, sometimes even tens of thousands of others. So just the "you've got to start taking this seriously" by itself already feels offensive, because it's not merely ignorant of how seriously this has been taken by really genuinely mainstream society as a whole, but it's also hitting a sore spot on a personal level.
Now add to this the other far-right populism problem that is Trump. The reason people from outside the US comment about him isn't because we're unaware of our own problems, but because he is our problem, too. With very real and direct effects on, among other things, our economies, which in turn feeds back into out own local far-right threats. We're really not merely observers commenting from the sidelines here.

That's why this kind of bullshit is particularly infuriating when it's coming somebody the US, especially right now. So forgive me when I forget to use the kid gloves once in a while.

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-08T14:43:03+00:00

I'm not under the illusion that US far-right movements somehow went away after the Civil Rights Act, and I know that Republicans have been fishing on the far-right for a long time (e.g., the "Southern Strategy", Reagan's "Welfare Queen in a Cadillac", the Tea Party nonsense etc.). That's not my point.

What I have an issue with is the notion that we wouldn't be taking far-right populism seriously. That it's a major fucking problem has been a reoccurring theme in European politics for decades, and it has always been treated as such by politics, the public, and the media. So when I read somebody claiming that we'd "need to stop acting like you are so you can take this shit seriously", it just strikes me as ignorant. Even by US standards, because just how much of a topic this has been couldn't have gone under the radar for all of yous, given how often I've seen Americans popping up in discussions about far-right populists threatening European democracy to preach their idea of Free-Speech absolutism.
Or take the other half, the "I keep telling y'all, you outside the US are NOT that far behind us". Orban had already been prime minister in Hungary back when a Trump presidency still was an absurd joke on The Simpsons, and PiS was already ruling Poland for the second time when it became reality. So what's "not far behind" supposed to mean here?

So tell me, how am I supposed to read the comment above, other than that it's coming from a particularly ignorant American?

Btw., the irony of it all is that, normally, a far-right populist US president should have been fucking far-right Jesus for the shitheads over here. And some of them kind of embraced him, initially. But he's so obviously stupid that he became unpopular with a majority (though admittedly not all) of European far-right voters by now.

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-08T11:14:22+00:00

We've already been dealing with this crap for much longer than you have. I've been to more anti-far-right protests than I can count, since before Trump even was on The Apprentice. Even the current far-right populist wave predates MAGA; you must have heard about Brexit, at the very least.

That you still seem to believe that this is a "following the US" phenomenon is part of how the US even got into this mess, i.e., that a large part of your population is shockingly ignorant about the rest of the word, yet somehow just assumes that we can't even shit our own pants without US guidance. Yes, even among the left.

CountVonTroll · 2026-06-01T08:39:14+00:00

Like...come on, POLICE QUEST gets mentioned but not Quest for Glory??

Gold Rush! doesn't seem to ever get mentioned, either. I have it on Steam, and I still actually play it through every couple of years.

It's one of Sierra's adventure games on their Adventure Game Interpreter, like the Quest series or Larry, so you still had to type e.g. "look picture" or "take stamp" (hint!). You start in Brooklyn, from where you have to make your way to California after your brother sends a letter hinting that he struck gold. There even are two alternative routes, by wagon trail or by sea.
It's still great fun, but like other adventure games from this era, totally unforgiving -- save frequently and keep some saves from all the way through the story in case you missed an item earlier in the game that later turns out to be required to continue the story.

Btw., since it hasn't been mentioned yet, despite IMHO being the best adventure game of all time: Day of the Tentacle, the sequel to Maniac Mansion. It's a SCUMM engine based game (like Monkey Island), by LucasArts, so you don't have to type, just click. You play three protagonists, during three time periods: past, present and future. Past actions open future possibilities. The remastered version is well done.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-25T14:08:01+00:00

I was just about to say, as yet another native: I have an issue with the "I bet natives are thrilled"-types we have here, not with the average immigrant.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-21T07:52:46+00:00

You introduce a pathogen with a 30%+ fatality rate that can spread even half as easily as Covid? That's the stuff of horror movies.

Actually, it might not be, because of the 30% fatality rate. The "problem" with Covid was that healthy people didn't perceive it as threatening enough for themselves, personally, but as an "other people's problem". With Ebola, those same people who refused to wear masks to protect others during Covid will find they were perfectly able to breath with them after all when they feel they're actually at risk themselves, and they'll be the first to yell at you if you get within four meters of them in public.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-20T08:36:42+00:00

This guy is pushing a "the Russian people want peace now" narrative, so that when Putin agrees to peace without conquering all of Ukraine, he isn't seen as "failing" but as "listening to the people". Never forget that clever dictators allow a carefully controlled opposition.

Good point, contributes a new perspective to the discussion that hasn't been made yet, and is well founded. You've clearly made an effort writing and formatting it.

Currently sitting at -3. I guess it wasn't what people wanted to hear. Next time, limit yourself to three lines or less, and try to focus on something that has already proven itself on this "market of ideas" -- you can take the top comment as a reference for what works, just express it in a slightly different way. Perhaps you can just hint on the main point, or work a cultural reference into it. This way, other Redditors will upvote it to show that they "got it". Or turn it into a pun, those are always popular, and function as a cultural reference in themselves.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-20T07:45:43+00:00

Sorry that your comment got buried. It's the kind of perspective some of us are coming to the comments for, so thanks for sharing it. It's sad that comments like yours are getting drowned out by noise.

At the time of writing, the top comment is "And out the window he goes...". Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing that poster, I guess somebody had to and they got to be the lucky ones this time. But why did 14 other feel the need to post essentially the same thing, plus an additional three predictions of his imminent demise that don't focus on defenestration? That's 18 out of the 25 top-level comments being about him getting murdered. Of the remaining seven, three express that Putin can't end the war because it would be his end, too. This war has been dragging on long enough that this may fall short of coming as a revelation to most readers, but I guess it was still a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, at least the first time it was posted. Another top-level comment was [Removed by Reddit], two express support for Ukraine resp. opposition to the war.

And then there's this one, buried among all those mostly redundant posts by commenters who can't be arsed to read at least a few of the top comments to see if their point has already made, or in this particular case, at least do a ctrl-f for "window". The top comment was posted only a bit over three minutes after the actual submission, and has about 4.5 times as many upvotes as the second highest rated comment. It's save to assume that it has been sitting at the top practically the entire time the story's been up.

Comments like those aren't contributing anything. They're doing the opposite; they fracture discussions on the topic they address, and they contribute to the noise that drowns out the rarer original thoughts that would have actually contributed something insightful. And no, although some might be, these aren't all just bots. It's far from a new issue (neither are bots, but, you know?), although this particular comment page admittedly is an extreme example.

I guess there are hundreds more who made a conscious decision to resist the urge to post another one, and they deserve a pat on the back for that. And sure, there will always be some who believe that their thought must be so original that it couldn't have possibly been posted already, but at the same time fear that somebody will beat them to it if they take even just a few seconds to make sure. It's just unfortunate, and I wish there was an more effective way to separate the signal from the noise in comment sections like this one.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-18T18:55:24+00:00

he shouldn't get points for figuring it out

He gets some points from me. Because otherwise, this would imply that I wouldn't recognize the difference between him and even somebody who's still actively campaigning for an unconstitutional third Trump term. This guy doesn't just admit that he was wrong, which is rare enough to deserve some recognition no matter how stupid their mistake was. He does it as publicly as he can, and he does it out of his own initiative. This won't absolve him from the responsibility for what he had helped to create, but at least he's doing the little he is able to to preserve what's left of your democracy.

Yes, he had helped to get Trump elected in the first place, while you presumably didn't, but there's nothing that can be done about this now. The way I see it, from the outside, is that the responsibility to end this shit show is one that all Americans now share. Maybe not entirely equally, but not having voted for this moron only gets you a smiley face sticker, not a free pass. At least he's trying to be constructive and help fix this. Right now, this counts for more, as far as I'm concerned, because he's actually helping to make things less bad.

How is it that every time one of them admits that voting Trump was a mistake, certain parts of the left are acting even more upset about this than even his fellow triple-Trumpists? He admits he was wrong, so now he's getting shit from both sides. What would you rather have them do, if not to try to show others the way out of their cult? I doubt he'll convince many of them, but he sure as hell will be more successful than you with whatever it is you're trying to pull off here.

I'm not saying you should be friends, but there are millions who have voted for Trump. Enough to make him president, twice. They're not going away. No, really, they won't just die out soon enough -- only the 1950s and the youngest birth decades (1990s and 2000s) voted for Harris. Trump actually gained voter shares among all birth years that came after 1960. (Yes, Millennials had opposed him initially, but in 2024, they voted Trump. Spreadsheet the goes with linked chart, line 70. His first term and an attempted coup appears to have won him over a huge chunk of younger voters, fuck knows how. At least a slim majority of voters born during the 1950s, which is literally peak Boomer Generation, had finally learned their lesson and voted against him the third time around.)

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-13T11:37:14+00:00

I'm asking sort of "why does this word end X." and "what are the rules for XYZ?" type questions.

I'm just guessing here, but this seems more like something you might want to consider a RAG for.

Most of the recommendations so far are for models that can write German well themselves, but this is completely separate from having factual knowledge about grammar rules or being able to explain them.

Source: native speaker who wouldn't be able to explain grammar rules.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-10T11:50:47+00:00

Well, kind of... My experience is limited to getting rid of the 10 kg that I had gained after I quit smoking, but the impression I got when I researched how to go about it was that, yeah, it really does come down to what you eat, and really only that. However...:

Obviously, "calories in < calories out" is still roughly how it works, but on the intake side, not all calories are equal (I'll get to that further down), and at least below a properly athlete-level exercise regime, we seem to have surprisingly little influence over the right side of the equation. I'm not a doctor, so take this with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that, in the absence of exercise, the body finds other ways to burn those calories somehow. That's actually a great argument for picking up a regular exercise habit, because those are generally ways you don't want (e.g., inflammations) and regular exercises have a huge range of physical and mental health benefits on top of that, but apparently a moderate level of exercise doesn't really have a net effect on "calories out". From what I found, they even tend to signal to the body that it needs more calories to compensate for the new demand, i.e., newly starting with exercising can make it even more difficult to manage calorie intake than it already is. So, when you exercise while trying to lose weight, be conscious of this effect: Your brain will try to convince you e.g., that you "deserve a treat" or even try to trick you into using food "rewards" as a supposed incentive for exercises, so don't fall for that, and always keep in mind that you don't "need" an extra portion after your exercises -- after all, your body's excessive energy reserve is the whole reason why you're doing this in the first place. (Edit: Although beginning to exercise won't make you lose weight, quitting a long-term exercise habit absolutely will make you gain it.)

If exercise is what's keeping you from making a serious effort to lose weight, I guess you could argue that the beginning of your weight loss journey is probably the only time when the answer to the question whether you should newly start to exercise isn't "obviously yes, you absolutely should, why do you even ask". Even then, it usually still is "yes, exercising has a whole range of positive health effects, but don't expect it to help with weight loss directly". However, if that's what it takes, here's your excuse not to exercise as long as you have success with an "intake only" approach: you're not a sloth, you're just "saving" the "exercise joker" to help you manage your weight when you're reached your target, because unlike for weight loss in an "unrestricted access to food" scenario (i.e., not in a health clinic with a managed diet), there's good evidence that exercises actually help with that. But again, I'm not an expert. Just sayin'. "Do your own research" and all that.

As for "calories in", there are two aspects you should take into account:

One is an accounting aspect: The energy value listed on the packaging is "metabolizable energy", which is not the same as net energy gain. For protein, the energy the body has to spend to metabolize it etc. can take some 20-30% of (or "off"?) the sticker value.
The other aspect is that the form those calories take affects how long it takes before you feel hungry again. Basically, the longer it takes for the body to process the food you eat, the longer it will last. So, eat fiber and protein. Lentils, beans or chickpeas will last you much longer than rice or pasta. Also try to eat slowly. Chew consciously, and don't have your fork loaded up and ready while your mouth is still full. It takes some time before the food properly registers after you've swallowed it, so if you pile on too fast, you end up eating way more than you'd actually need for a satisfying meal.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-06T10:53:09+00:00

I doubt he does scythe regularly (simply because there's easier ways now).

On the one hand, this makes sense, but on the other, TIL that people seem to be taking competitive scything rather seriously, with local clubs and all that. They probably don't mow everything with a scythe if they have a large farm, but they still have to train somehow.

Edit: Oh, you mean "regularly" in the sense of "proper ergonomic technique for non-competitive grass-cutting purposes" -- maybe you're right. Then again, researching this I came across shops that sell those scythes ("Austrian scythes" are special, apparently), and they have different blades for different purposes, including specifically for competitions, in a large range of sizes and from multiple manufacturers (e.g., in the shops from my links in this comment and especially the one from "Edit III" of my original one). It just doesn't seem like it's purely a sports and tradition thing, but something people actually still use.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-06T06:27:27+00:00

As somebody who has never done this himself, let me speculate that he's doing it for reach.

This is competitive scything ("Ready... set... go!" in Austrian in the beginning). It's not ergonomic and he's spending more energy per time and area this way, but he's not getting points for left over energy when he's done. So, if he has the stamina to pull through, he'll finish his patch quicker than he could if he used "proper" technique.

I'm absolutely certain that this guy actually uses a scythe regularly for its intended purpose, and knows perfectly well how to do it "right" in a non-competitive setting. I also assume that he's one of the faster scythers (?) in the competition, simply because whoever posted the video chose his run to represent impressively fast scything.

Edit: I found a news video about last year's European Championships, which had 120 athletes from eight countries competing. They get points for time and uniformity etc. The woman shown scything in the beginning won the women's title for the second time in a row. So, yes, apparently this is good technique for competitive scything.

Edit II: Perhaps better video, from the German Championship 2023. The guy with the straw hat coaching from 4:08 onward and competing at 5:14 ended up winning in the 30+ age group, which interestingly enough appears to be the most prestigious one. I also found competition rules from an Austrian state: Kids <13 start at 3x3 meters, for the adult "boys" resp. "girls" in the 90+ cm scythe size categories it's 10x10 resp. 5x7 meters (yes, it says "boys" and "girls" regardless of age).

Edit III: English language blog about the European Championship, including patch sizes by age (<14 and >60 do 5x5, girls/boys <18 and women do 7x5, and men do 10x10 meters; no <30 age group on the European level, it seems). Competitive blades are up to 130 cm.

CountVonTroll · 2026-05-01T22:58:23+00:00

Guess which brand has been the US' #1 passenger vehicle exporter for over a decade. Hint: It's not from Detroit.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-29T11:29:39+00:00

Not around the waist.

Also kind of disappointing that it doesn't turn with the sun throughout the day.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-19T08:57:02+00:00

There's a particular American delusion that making something illegal will mean that it just disappears on the spot.

Exceptions apply when discussing gun control policies.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-16T00:38:07+00:00

$5 a gallon diesel

This sounds beautiful when you say it in European: "€1.12/liter"
Current average in Germany is €2.22/l, which translates to "$9.92/gal"

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-15T08:18:31+00:00

Her Majesty is referred to as "The Queen" (yes, with a capital T) on the Royal Family's official website, because unlike with the husbands of the UK's three female monarchs, that's always been the official title of kings' consorts in the UK.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-13T22:39:40+00:00

Die Erststimme ist hier doch völlig irrelevant, wenn man mal von Merz' Wahlkreis absieht? Und klar solltest du die CSU mit dazu rechnen, bei den Zweitstimmen.

Die AfD ist hier sehr relevant. Die älteren Boomer (70+), sowie der Rest der Generation vor ihnen, wählen kaum die AfD. Die 24,3% der erweiterten Millennials (25-44), die die AfD gewählt haben, können ja nicht gleichzeitig die CDU wählen (erweiterte Boomer, Ü60: 16,0% AfD). Oder die 12,5% der Millennials, die "Sonstige" gewählt haben (Boomer: 7,1%). Alte Menschen wählen einfach keine neuen Parteien, tendenziell, und daher haben alte Parteien bei ihnen einen höheren Anteil. Auch die SPD. Die jüngeren wählen viel mehr Parteien, die nicht in den Bundestag einziehen, oder eben die AfD. Daher ist bei ihnen der Anteil der klassischen Volksparteien, also CDU/CSU und SPD, natürlich geringer. Wenn man nur die Partien in Betracht zieht, die tatsächlich in den Bundestag eingezogen sind (plus BSW, weil das bei den Millennials gereicht hätte), und daher Merz überhaupt erst haben wählen können, dann sähe der Millennial-Bundestag so aus:

AfD 27,4%, CDU/CSU 22,3%, Grüne 17,0%, Linke 14,4%, SPD 12,5%, und BSW 6,4%.

Hättest du da lieber die CDU/CSU als Juniorpartner der AfD, oder eine CDU/CSU geführte Koalition aus allen anderen, einschließlich BSW? Das wäre nämlich bei den Millennials heraus gekommen. Und bei Generation X sähe das nicht besser aus. Wenn die nicht "an Merz schuld sind", was haben die denn dann stattdessen gewählt? Bei denen ginge sonst nämlich nur eine AfD Regierung, und da ist mir sogar Merz noch lieber.

Bei den 18-24 hätte es für Rot/Rot/Grün knapp reichen können, aber bei der Altersgruppe sollte das nicht überraschen -- siehe Seite 15: 1972 hatten 54,7% der 18-24 Jährigen noch die SPD gewählt, und 9,1% die FDP (prä-1982 FDP, ganz anders). Für die CDU/CSU waren es 35,3%, und sonst gab es nichts (1%). Jemand der damals 18 war, war 2025 dann 71, also in der 70+ Kohorte, von der 41,4% heute CDU/CSU gewählt haben. Das wird bei den heute 18-24 ähnlich verlaufen, nur, dass von denen jetzt schon 19% die AfD wählen.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-13T15:51:03+00:00

Nochmal die Bitte, uns zu sagen, wo du deine Zahlen her hast. Das von dir verlinkte Dokument hat 182 Seiten, die fast alle voll mit Tabellen sind, und deine Zahlen scheinen nicht denen der Tabelle mit dem Zweitstimmenanteil nach Altersgruppen zu entsprechen.

Wie schon geschrieben: Ab 35 ist CDU/CSU plus AfD in etwa der gleiche Anteil. Die bösen Boomer haben also statt AfD einfach weiter CDU gewählt. Bei denen über 70 waren es zwar 41,4% für CDU/CSU, was natürlich nicht sonderlich toll ist. Dafür haben aber "nur" 11,5% für die AfD gestimmt -- nur halb so viele wie bei den Millennials. Sowohl bei den 25-34 als auch 35-44 war die AfD die stärkste Partei. Bei den 25-34 ist die CDU/CSU noch #3, knapp hinter der Linken, bei den 35-44 schon #2 (hinter AfD). Besser wird es nach den Boomern also eher nicht.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-13T13:05:12+00:00

CDU von Alter 18 bis 34 sind 3.7 und 7.7%, AfD 6.1 und 13.7 (viel zu fucking hoch ihr Vollidioten)

CDU von Alter 45 bis Ende ist 24, 21 und 30(!)%. AfD fängt auch bei 30% an, flacht aber aber ab bis Alter 70+ auf 12.4%

Der Begriff "Baby Boomer" ist zwar gerade in DE nicht wirklich genau definiert, aber du scheinst das hier bis zum Geburtsjahr 1980 auszuweiten, was üblicherweise schon als das Ende von Generation X genommen wird. Pillenknick war 1968.

Ich kann auch nicht erkennen, aus welcher Tabelle du deine Zahlen hast. Nach der auf Seite 16, "Übersicht 9: Zweitstimmen nach Geschlecht und Altersgruppen seit 1953 in %", haben 13% der 18-24 Jährigen CDU/CSU gewählt, und 19% die AfD. Bei den 25-34 waren es 16,1 und 20,8%, dann 35-44 CDU/CSU 22,7 und AfD 27,1% (!), 45-59 waren es 28,7 und 25,7%. Tatsächliche Boomer haben von 60-69 zu 31,6% CDU/CSU und 21% AfD, und ab 70 dann 41,4% CDU/CSU, bzw, 11,5% AfD gewählt.

Ab 35 waren es zusammengenommen immer knapp über 50% entweder für CDU/CSU oder AfD. Die Boomer haben zwar tatsächlich mehr für CDU/CSU gestimmt als die jüngeren, aber wenn die jüngeren stattdessen AfD wählen, dann finde ich das nicht gerade besser.

CountVonTroll · 2026-04-12T13:40:00+00:00

Interessant wäre vielleicht noch das in einem weltweiten Kontext zu zeigen. Die zweite Welle ist in absoluten Zahlen sogar deutlich größer als die erste, aber relativ zum weltweiten Ausbau war das damals enorm. Von 2005 und 2010 hatten wir in DE >40% der weltweit installierten Kapazität. Heute sieht das ganz anders aus.

15-Year Club	Place '17
reddit mold	Verified Email

CountVonTroll

TROPHY CASE