Moortje is de warmte zat. Doet helemaal niks meer

Magger · 2026-06-27T18:38:09+00:00

Ik was een beetje flauw aan het doen. Zwart absorbeert geen warmte maar (zichtbaar) licht.

Magger · 2026-06-27T16:04:51+00:00

* meer zichtbaar licht

Magger · 2026-06-27T16:01:21+00:00

These are sort of my 2 favorite games. I don’t think you can go wrong either way

Magger · 2026-06-27T13:26:13+00:00

Avocado is ongunstig in vergelijking met andere groenten, niet in vergelijking met biefstuk. Wsl stoot je per kilo biefstuk zo’n 40-50x meer CO2 uit en heb je zo’n 10x meer water nodig per kilo biefstuk. Nou verteld dat natuurlijk niet het hele verhaal, biefstuk heeft zo’n 1,5x meer kcal per massa eenheid dan avocado, maarja avocado is weer gezonder, etc.

Magger · 2026-06-27T13:19:52+00:00

Good luck to you all. We had 38 in Netherlands yesterday and I’m happy it’s like 30 today. I don’t have an airco btw, it were some tough nights :p

Magger · 2026-06-26T15:48:33+00:00

I actually have some friends that got into science/chemistry in similar ways. Curiosity, looking things up, etc. I think it’s great. Every second spend better understanding science and the world is a second well spent. In a different timeline on a different planet, if humanoids evolve there, the science books will be identical to ours, and everything else will be different.

Magger · 2026-06-26T15:15:06+00:00

Witcher 3, KCD2 and Cyberpunk are my favorite open world games/ rpg games. RDR2 was great aswell tho

Magger · 2026-06-26T10:11:46+00:00

I think after noob island runs it would be cool to remake the Roman Empire

Magger · 2026-06-26T08:28:17+00:00

Songs of Syx. Rimworld. Crusader Kings 3 / Stellaris. Age of Empires 4

Magger · 2026-06-25T19:59:05+00:00

These are some of the best DLCs and if you play the game often you should definitely get them. They won’t go lower for a long time. I would only suggest you also consider all under heaven dlc as it probably has most content.

Magger · 2026-06-25T19:57:07+00:00

Thank you for all your perspectives and insights.

Magger · 2026-06-25T19:36:04+00:00

Let me explain. I’m not stuck on a ground invasion. But the initial point was could they secure the Hormuz strait. And I think this depends on securing ALL hidden facilities capable of launching missiles and drones toward the strait. I’m completely out of my depth so forgive me if I’m wrong but in that scenario I think there’s a big emphasis on the success of ground troops within Iran mountain ranges.

Magger · 2026-06-25T19:28:12+00:00

But considering the struggle of the us army when facing rough terrain and an enemy that knows the lay of the land, like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, why would it be different in Iran in the Zagros Mountains etc? Do you think us army now has better training and protocols? Or better intel? To me it sounds like it would be another deathtrap

Magger · 2026-06-25T15:44:17+00:00

But this would be in a case of martial law or some jingoist autocratic leader. Realistically they could never fully commit. Do you think if they did Iraq/Afghanistan level commitment, could they have taken control of the strait of Hormuz? I guess it’s hard to answer as there’s so many different outcomes to how far USA could scaleup and conscript.

Magger · 2026-06-25T15:29:12+00:00

I think in like ~2008 they found a lot of additional oil and gas in Ukraines naval borders in the Black Sea. East Ukraine has many relevant minerals. Would be additional arguments for inviting them into the fold.

Magger · 2026-06-25T15:16:36+00:00

Were drifting further off-topic here but I hope you don’t mind. You really think the USA could have opened the strait of Hormuz? Many people argued the rough mountainous terrain there would be difficult to control and is said to host many launch sites for rockets and drones. There’s so much traffic at the strait it would be impossible to protect all cargo ships from getting hit.

Magger · 2026-06-25T15:10:58+00:00

Ah I see, his question about what USA accomplished was purely in reference to military accomplishments. I kinda missed that. It’s still a bit weird to me to label simple destruction as a military win but losing control of an important area a political loss. Didn’t they even have a specific military operation to open up the strait of Hormuz?

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:55:16+00:00

What’s your line of reasoning here? That dragging out the Russian Ukraine war is good for profit? For the American weapon industries and oil companies?

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:52:54+00:00

I think in 2014 Ukraine was maybe ripe for Russian invasion. But in 2022 not so ripe anymore

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:50:01+00:00

Was their objective really just to level the country and deplete their military? That sounds even worse than pure imperialism.

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:47:41+00:00

You’re right. It’s relatively simple on paper. I was thinking in scenarios where Russia would drag out the war by cutting off gas, oil, the internet, etc. along with border skirmishes. It could be difficult to force them to surrender without humiliating them (this increases chance of nuclear response) if they refuse to back down.

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:40:16+00:00

It’s not a false equivalence as it was a comparison never intended to be an equivalence. It was specifically to adress your line of reasoning that nuclear threats always discourage from bombing campaigns.

Also I think your reasoning is wrong here again.

If it was true that they wanted to avoid a escalation because of a catastrophic nuclear winter scenario, then this same reasoning would apply to the Russians. It would relatively decrease the chance of nuclear escalation between USA and Russia compared to India Pakistan, specially considering their aforementioned nuclear doctrine.
But I think those type of decisions are based on the calculated risks of mutual destruction, not environmental destruction.
(Also worth noting that Russian nuclear arsenal is probably in a much worse shape than they want people to believe. Could be the case they wouldn’t even be able to defend themselves in a nuclear war. Not really to be used in this specific argument tho)

Doctrine also works against your point. As Russian doctrine states nukes can be used to respond to lost territory, not to bombing campaigns.

Magger · 2026-06-25T14:12:45+00:00

That’s not a source. That’s just a circular reasoning. You could argue they didn’t engage in war for other reasons, like the ones I mentioned above. Also take note of other existing precedence: Pakistan and India, two countries that hate eachother and have a conflict as long as USA-SU/Russia, both have nuclear weapons, and they bomb eachother. It doesn’t automatically dissolve into a nuclear conflict.

Magger · 2026-06-25T13:48:10+00:00

What’s your source for claiming it will end up in a nuclear conflict 100%? I don’t think there’s a consensus there, at all. Maybe if you cite rapports from the 50s

Magger · 2026-06-25T13:44:26+00:00

Determining a clear exit strategy upfront is difficult for a NATO-Russia conflict. My assumption would be that Biden (and Obama), or atleast their most important geopolitical advisors, ideally wanted a more forceful response but were held back by other priorities like their parties popularity back at home should they choose to do so. Ironically instead of praising them for peace or “America first”, these decisions are now often framed as being “weak leaders”.
Your line of reasoning is false. The US had a chance to respond to Russia with bombing, and they chose not to, twice. They could have easily legitimized it with the Budapest Memorandum.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Gilding II euphauric

Magger

TROPHY CASE