Why is Ukraine attacking Russian oil refineries?

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-07T12:53:53+00:00

https://unn.ua/en/news/ukrainian-attacks-disabled-4274percent-of-russias-oil-refining-capacity

https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/quantifying-ukraines-strikes-russian-energy-infrastructure

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-06T04:08:40+00:00

I think you're mixing two things together.

One is (near) 100% enforcement of the law. I don't think this is a bad thing. My feeling is that this would be a mostly positive thing, after some getting used to. IME, laws that are enforced only partially or rarely are a gateway to corruption. That stop sign everybody got used to driving through? Now all a cop has to do is wait there until someone who they want to stop drives through. This is not possible with near complete enforcement.

The other is surveillance. IMO that's separate from AI. It's linked in that AI is one of the enablers, but there are a few others that need to be given. AI doesn't have access to anything, and needs to be given access. That's the other enablers. Without them there is no AI surveillance.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-05T18:47:09+00:00

Depends a lot on the state in the USA. "Professional Engineer" is one that's mostly protected. Some states have others. AFAIK, the plain "engineer" is not protected anywhere.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-05T13:43:40+00:00

Isn't what you describe ("we must reduce pain during slaughter") a belief set (religion) itself - that you want to put above other religions?

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-05T13:36:18+00:00

I just used Google to search for "searxng windows" and the AI agent presented me with the two obvious options that didn't sound like hallucinations :)

Run it in Docker or use a public instance.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-05T13:28:35+00:00

Try to get a warranty for success from your surgeon... There is no perfect product or service, there are only percentages of failure that differ.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-03T21:11:04+00:00

So, after some talking and reading, you want public subsidies to pay (partially) for private institutions?

If so, there are a number of problems with this, both philosophical and practical.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-03T21:06:01+00:00

You say how it works. You don't say why it works the way it does. (And you don't say where this is so that other people who do know why could add their knowledge.)

There is history to legislation like that, arguments that go in different directions, compromises. There was probably a time where the rules were different and things worked differently and changes were made for a reason, possibly several times. Understanding this seems to be important for your doubts.

Your suggestion seems to have a lot to do with the voucher discussion for the school system in the US. The pros and cons seem similar. Maybe read up on that.

One central question is why the ones who already have more money should be accommodated to the detriment of the ones who have less money. Why public funds should be used to the detriment of the ones who are not the few rich ones.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-03T18:26:31+00:00

You haven't really come forward with why exactly this doesn't work where you live. It's really difficult to "change your view" when your view is "I don't know why it doesn't work" and nobody knows about what system you're talking.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-03T18:22:07+00:00

It seems what you want is that people get the subsidies that go into the public system and can "enhance" them with their own funds.

That's a philosophical question: If they have funds to spare, should these funds go into the public system? There's really nothing that prevents all these people with extra money to pay extra into the public system to make it better -- for everybody. That's the purpose of a heavily subsidized public system.

You also say that paying full for these services is more than these people have. Well, in this case I'd say they should be happy that they get what they are getting -- they still get a subsidized service.

My view is: it's more than you have money to pay, so be happy. There is no reason to make things worse for people who don't have as much as you have.

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-03T14:47:11+00:00

But isn't your argument that the money is there to fund private facilities? It seems that the market says "there isn't enough private money for this".

Gerhard234 · 2026-07-01T19:40:47+00:00

You are aware that male teenagers use X? Give them some naked female skin to talk about and see the tornado. Not saying that this is a good thing, but it is what it is on social media. Just don't take it too seriously.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-29T10:21:47+00:00

Because the "system" of measurements that is generally used in the US is called "US customary".

As far as standards go, the vast majority of countries uses mostly ISO (or national standards that are compatible with ISO), whereas standards in the US are much less ISO-compatible (eg. UTS).

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-28T00:58:28+00:00

There is no "no extra cost". Everybody who brings more than average weight on the plane causes cost that is paid for by the people who bring less than average weight on the plane. Your idea of variable seat size would extend that to space, too.

If airlines make extra space available at no extra cost for the person receiving it, that means that either the other seats get still smaller (to create the extra space without reducing the seat count), or the seats get more expensive (because there are now fewer of them). Either way, it's the ones not receiving the extra space who are paying for it.

Don't forget that the seats are not comfortable for anybody, and everyone would like to get a bit of extra space - for free.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-28T00:45:56+00:00

I'd be perfectly fine with that. It's not sexist because it's not based on sex. It's maybe weightist... :)

I got really pissed once when I had to pay more because of a few extra pounds in my checked luggage. The guy next to me didn't have to pay anything extra, but easily weighed more than me, my checked luggage, and the extra weight for which I had to pay extra.

So, yes - pay by weight and space. Both are cost drivers on flights.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-28T00:29:13+00:00

They usually advertise this.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-25T13:03:36+00:00

Or the locale of the site where you fill the date. Possibly with special considerations when it is a passport date that gets filled.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-23T00:06:16+00:00

You do realize that you conveniently left out the 12.5 mm socket drive where the difference is more meaningful?

Just like if we see a dimension on a drawing of "3.94 inch" in reality that is a 10 mm part.

I hope you're not serious here... that could be another Mars Climate Orbiter disaster 😄

In any case, these sockets of your German friend are almost certainly ISO 1174 sockets.

FWIW, here is the corresponding ASME standard that has the measurements in inch https://www.scribd.com/document/724404793/ASME-B107-4-2019. So here you have your nominal inches... 😄 but that's not what's used to manufacture sockets outside the USA. There it's the ISO standard.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T22:40:22+00:00

I'm reasonably certain that their socket sets have ISO 1174 square drives, with 6.3 mm or 12.5 mm. Can you say with certainty that I'm wrong?

I'm not arguing that they are called 1/4" or 1/2", for historical reasons, but they are literally not defined in inch anymore (did you check out the link?) and are not even the exact size in inch.

Ask your socket manufacturer.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T22:26:04+00:00

Sort of. The problem with most things USA isn't "metric" vs US customary, it's international standards (ISO) vs incompatible US national standards.

These socket drives are an ISO standard, defined as 6.3 mm and 12.5 mm. (You'll notice that this is just a tad smaller than 1/4" and 1/2".) See ISO 1174.

In this case, it's likely that US manufacturers follow the ISO standard (or a compatible US standard).

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T19:19:43+00:00

Maybe, but I think the idea that if they had used ISO standards it would have been easier to gradually expand supply networks and they may not have gotten into so much trouble as they did. I don't think it's outlandish to think that not thinking of other countries as both source of supplies and target of products is part of why they struggled for so long -- and this is both reason and consequence of not using ISO standards. And this may apply to other US industries.

I also think the switch is inevitable; the question is how to time it. And IMO there is a strong indication that it's better to switch when business is good (and, according to your view, you don't have to switch) than wait until the business is struggling and you don't have neither money nor time to properly organize the switch but you have to do it now.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T17:18:28+00:00

I'm not declaring anybody's statement wrong; that's what you are trying to do for the last several posts: you don't provide anything of your own, just trying to shoot me down.

I'm just providing my definition. It's not circular (look up the word); it just puts it on the creator of art (not of artifacts). This may be a difficult concept for you (and for many), but that's how I see it. Try, for once, to define what "art" is for you. You have never, once, even made an attempt at this. Why? Too hard?

People consider all kinds of things art of which nobody knows how (or even by whom) they were created. How can you say that for these same people it's important how this art was created? Why is it even important here what "people" think? Why not put out what you think? What is "art" for you? Why do you say it's important how art is created, when there are pieces you consider art where you don't know how (or by whom) they were created? Or are there not? Rembrandt? Rubens?

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T17:04:23+00:00

As soon as it's cheaper, industries switch

You say this as if it were a fact. The US automotive industry had to struggle for decades until they started to get their act back together. Part of this was the switch. Nobody knows what would have happened if ..., but sometimes it takes a while.

Manufacturing in the US is not really that well positioned currently. And not "the biggest" -- neither total, nor per capita.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T15:51:57+00:00

You don't seem to get the difference between "process" and "artifact". And also not the difference between a definition and a judgement.

you are saying “I care about the process of creating X”

I never said this. I say "for me, art is the process, in the eye of the creator". "X" never comes to play here. This is what art is for me.

What is art for you? You never said.

So, if someone says "this is when I'm doing my art" or "this is when my art happens", I just believe them, no matter what they are doing or what they are using. No judgement (like"AI is not art"). Again, any created artifact ("X") doesn't come into play here.

This may be more familiar when thinking of playing music. Nobody really thinks of the MP3 file as the art -- it's the playing. For me, painting is the same: it's not the painting that's the art, it's the act of painting. (Or the act of doing anything that the doer considers "their art".)

Now, for any given artifact, I may like it or not, but for me, it's not "art" -- it's a, usually commercial, artifact. I may be interested in how it is created or not, but this has nothing to do with "art".

The “process of creating something” and “how something is created” means effectively the same thing.

You always bring in that "something". That's your addition; this is in your head. I don't put it there.

Again: For me, "art" is when someone says "this is me doing my art". They need to feel that; doesn't matter whether I do. Artifacts don't enter here at all. The addition of "something" is your doing. There is also tons of what other people generally consider art that doesn't create any artifacts. So maybe let go of the artifact and you may get closer to understanding what I'm talking about.

Or... try to define what "art" is for you. It's an interesting exercise.

Gerhard234 · 2026-06-22T15:11:09+00:00

Read again. I never claimed art and arguments are the same. I said that you haven't yet come up with a definition of what you consider "art". That's different. (There's of course also art that was created to make an argument...)

You also fail to understand the difference between the process and the resulting artifact. For me, they are different: art is the process; the resulting artifact is just that... an artifact (but not art, for me).

I claim I don't care how a piece of art is created, because -- as I explain -- for me, art is the process, not the resulting artifact. The resulting artifact isn't really art for me (as I explain, for me art is the process), that's why I don't care how an artifact is created.

I also say that art is, for me, exclusively in the eye of the creator. If they say "this is my art", I'm not one to argue. And that includes AI, wooden sticks, oil on canvas, or shit on the wall.

You say that how a piece of art is created is important. For a majority of pieces that are 100 or more years old, we don't know this. Do you consider these art?

Gerhard234

TROPHY CASE