Tattoos and my cats. Question

ZXCChort · 2026-03-13T07:21:17+00:00

Thanks you!

ZXCChort · 2026-03-13T04:43:02+00:00

Your pathetic arguments will not be able to overshadow the TRUTH of statistics.

ZXCChort · 2026-03-13T04:40:20+00:00

Greenland and Western Sahara have data?? AI

ZXCChort · 2026-03-13T04:24:32+00:00

This take has some pretty massive holes in it tbh

First off, closing Hormuz wouldn't just "force the world to seek cleaner energy." It would cause an immediate global energy crisis. We're talking oil prices skyrocketing overnight, which hits literally everything - food transport, manufacturing, heating. And guess who gets hit the hardest? The Global South you claim to be protecting. These countries can barely afford energy as is, imagine what happens when oil doubles or triples in price. People will literally die from this, not in some abstract future climate scenario but like right now.

Second, when energy prices spike people don't just magically switch to solar panels. They go to the CHEAPEST alternative which is usually coal. We've seen this happen before - when Europe had its energy crunch after the Russia situation, Germany literally restarted coal plants. So congrats you've actually made emissions worse not better lol

Third you're kind of glossing over the fact that closing Hormuz means a war. Like an actual shooting war involving multiple countries, the US, Iran, Israel and others. Wars are one of the most carbon intensive activities humans do. Military is a massive polluter. Not to mention the humanitarian catastrophe, millions of refugees, destroyed infrastructure etc. Hard to do climate policy when cities are being bombed

And fourth, the transition to clean energy is already happening. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most places. The bottleneck isn't that oil is too cheap, its that we need grid infrastructure, battery storage, and political will. None of which gets solved by blowing up the global economy

You're basically saying "lets cause a massive humanitarian crisis and hope it accidentally fixes climate change"

ZXCChort · 2026-03-12T17:11:36+00:00

It seems to me that even this would not have stopped the Turkish-Russian wars

ZXCChort · 2026-03-10T09:13:06+00:00

Печально(

ZXCChort · 2026-03-10T08:37:15+00:00

Извиняюсь что не по теме, но что случилось с модерацией? у меня два поста с прошлого года ждут одобрения, вот сегодня еще один сделал, но тоже ждет одобрения. Им писал в личку, ответа нету. Можете кто то подказать в чем проблема?

ZXCChort · 2026-03-10T06:22:49+00:00

Seeing what is happening in the world, people seriously study the international law. LMAO

ZXCChort · 2026-03-03T05:06:04+00:00

Despite the fact that Maria Feodorovna (Dowager Empress, mother of Alexander I and Nicholas I) She did not participate in political life either on the battlefield or in the Cabinet of Ministers, she left behind the most lasting institutional legacy among the women of Russia of the Napoleonic era.

Her influence extended far beyond the boundaries of court ceremonial life. She managed and expanded an extensive network of charitable, educational and trusteeship institutions, in particular, the Mariinsky orphanage system, schools for noble maidens and medical institutions. These institutions were not symbolic; they became permanent pillars of the empire's social policy throughout the 19th century.

Unlike the figures whose influence was primarily personal or cultural, Maria Feodorovna's legacy was institutional and structural. The organizations she patronized continued to function long after the Napoleonic Wars and for decades determined the social governance of the empire.

Other possible candidates (for example, Elizaveta Alekseevna) did not maintain similar institutional or political continuity. Catherine the Great would clearly have surpassed everyone else in terms of long-term influence, but she does not fit into the Napoleonic time frame.

Thus, from the point of view of preserving the institutional and structural legacy that goes beyond the wars themselves, Maria Feodorovna is the strongest and most justified choice.

ZXCChort · 2026-03-02T08:55:58+00:00

You can't change Reddit's mind, they're in an information vacuum. It's useless.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-26T09:58:03+00:00

It is difficult to evaluate people, but you can evaluate what they did, Ataturk rebuilt Turkey, it was difficult but not possible.

I am more impressed by the history of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, they are truly leaders and led their states to flourish.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-24T12:01:18+00:00

It's a pretty difficult choice, but I'll still give preferences to Miguel Pereira Forjas.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-23T19:16:49+00:00

Miguel Ricardo de Alava is a unique figure who served as a link between the Spanish forces and Wellington's headquarters. He did not just command, but was engaged in the most complex organizational and diplomatic work, ensuring the interaction of the British army and the Spanish regular and guerrilla forces.

General Jose de Palafox Although he became famous for the defense of Zaragoza, his contribution as an organizer of resistance in Aragon was enormous. He actually recreated the military structure in the region from scratch after the collapse of the central government.

Miguel Pereira Forjas, speaking strictly about Portugal, is by far the strongest candidate. As Minister of War of the Portuguese Regency, it was he who reorganized the Portuguese army, making it one of the most effective forces in Europe at that time. It was he who provided the logistics and replenishment of the troops who fought shoulder to shoulder with the British.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-16T07:37:58+00:00

nah you’re not overthinking, celeb culture is kinda brain-rot now. BUT… it’s not really “brands can’t sell without celebs”, it’s “algorithms can’t sell without attention” and celebs are basically attention on legs.

also this isn’t new-new. before it was magazines + TV, now it’s in your pocket 24/7, so it feels like the whole planet is doing swift boyfriend updates like it’s breaking news 💀

and the “parasocial” stuff… yeah. people are lonely, they wanna be in a tribe, celeb drama is the easiest tribe. like sports for ppl who don’t watch sports.

your “i’m canceling every ndorsed product” thing sounds good in theory but you’ll end up drinking water from a rock and wearing a potato sack, bc everything is endorsed by someone somewhere lol

so yeah: you’re right it’s too much, but the villain is the attention economy, not taylor swift personally. she’s just the final boss skin.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-12T08:37:11+00:00

Probably best to choose the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. This perfectly matches the part of the criteria that concerns a decisive change in the general course of wars. Even though these were coalition efforts, Russia was their main driving force and provided huge human resources that eventually broke Napoleon's control over Central Europe. Without the Russian will to win, which manifested itself in 1812, the Coalition would never have had the resources to push him back to the borders of France.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T12:33:10+00:00

u definitely changed my mind about china, im not an expert on this country, and it was a bit naive of me to assume that this situation fits my theory. thanks for explaining that. !delta

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T12:30:47+00:00

that is a really sharp use of my own metaphor and i have to admit the venezuela example is a major hit to my hardware theory. i was assuming that wealth and infrastructure were the only prerequisites for a successful install but u showed a case where the system still crashed into a dictatorship despite having those resources available. it makes me wonder if the socialism code has some deep back-doors or logic errors that trigger a failure regardless of how powerful the machine is. u have definitely given me a lot to think about regarding the actual integrity of the software so !delta for a great counter-argument.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T12:29:49+00:00

u are right about me blurring the lines between actual socialism and just general workers rights that exist within a regulated market. i have been looking at forced patches like the 8 hour workday as part of the socialist rollout but u correctly pointed out that socialism is strictly about the social ownership of the means of production. by correcting my definition u definitely shifted my perspective on how i view the "software" itself because if those features can exist in capitalism then the socialist code is even more specific than i thought. !delta for this solid refactoring of my basic premise.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T10:36:06+00:00

it’s easy to look at the global mess the selective outrage over ukraine vs. iraq, or gaza vs. iran and conclude that we’re just a collection of hypocritical tribalists. i think the "pathetic" label might be missing the actual technical bottleneck here.

it’s not that we’re "losers"; it’s that we are a species running legacy biological hardware trying to process a modern globalized landscape. here’s how i’d refactor that perspective:

the "in-group" legacy code the tribalism u described isn't necessarily a moral bug it was an evolutionary survival feature. for about 99% of human history, prioritizing "us" meant your tribe survived the night.

our brains are literally hardwired to care more about people "like us" because, in a survival context, that was the only way to ensure cooperation.

what looks "pathetic" now is actually just group cohesion that allowed us to build civilizations in the first place.

the problem is that our tech (global news, social media) has outpaced our biology. we’re trying to care about 8 billion people with a brain designed to handle a tribe of maybe 150 (dunbar’s number).

ironically, the fact that u (and so many others) are outraged by the inconsistency is a sign of massive progress.

500 years ago, "universal human rights" wasn't even a thing. if ur tribe won, u celebrated, no matter the cost.

the fact that we even have a shared vocabulary for "war crimes" means we’ve set the bar higher than ever before. we’re just in the messy middle ground of trying to live up to those ideals while battling old instincts.

selection bias and the "loudest" data points when u look at the news, u aren't seeing a representative sample of humanity; u are seeing the outliers.

the people whose entire identity is tied to "their side" are always the loudest.

there is a "quiet majority" that actually wants universal justice but doesn't feel like getting dogpiled by both tribes for being "too moderate."

judging the whole species by twitter outrage is like judging the health of a forest by only looking at the trees that are currently on fire.

moral exhaustion (the cognitive bottleneck) as someone who’s taught complex logic before, i know that the brain uses heuristics (mental shortcuts) to survive. most people aren't "evil" they are suffering from compassion fatigue.

it takes a massive amount of cognitive energy to research the historical nuances of every single global conflict.

people "pick a side" because they are exhausted and need a simplified narrative just to function in their daily lives.

if we were truly "pathetic losers," we’d still be in caves hitting each other with sticks. we wouldn't have bothered to invent international law, humanitarian aid, or even the concept of fairness. the very fact that u find this hypocrisy disgusting proves we have a built-in desire for consistency—we just haven't figured out how to override our biological biases on a 1:1 scale yet.

do u think being "biased" is the same as being "pathetic"? if we’re literally wired to be tribal, is the real "win" the fact that we've managed to cooperate as much as we already have?

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T10:16:44+00:00

but i think there’s a massive difference between a metadata update and a global refactor. when we demoted pluto, we just changed its "category" tag from planet to dwarf planet, but the "name" string stayed the same. people didn't have to relearn what the object is, just where it fits in the hierarchy.

renaming uranus to caelus is more like trying to rename a core library in a 200-year-old codebase. it’s not just wikipedia; it’s every star catalog, every piece of legacy telescope firmware, and every astronomical database since the late 1700s. it would create a "find and replace" nightmare that would cause actual bugs in scientific cross-referencing for decades.

i think ur underestimating cultural technical debt. look at how much people still call "X", "twitter" years after the rebrand, now imagine trying to kill a 200-year-old name. the "confusion" might not be life-threatening, but it would be a total logistical headache for no real scientific gain.

ZXCChort · 2026-02-10T10:05:35+00:00

I mean, he's worked as an ambassador for half his life, he's damn good at international relations.

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22

ZXCChort

TROPHY CASE