We really need to rethink the internet as it is today. A 1GW nuclear power plant produces as much electricity as 2.39million people need in terms of global average or 700k US Americans. So when multiple big tech companies talk about multiple nuclear power plants to run even more servers to what is already a widely used service, then we have a massive problem. So we need to talk about AI, streaming, tracking of users and really how many features most users really need for their services. This is just insane.

First of all 40 times longer

There is always a bit of unemployment, due to people switching jobs.

Sign up bonuses are hitting above $30k right now, with pretty good pay and death bonus. Everybody willing to join the war, even for money probably sign up. So they have to force people, which leads to men fleeing the country.

Russia has been a country growing due to migrants. However due to the war propaganda being more and more far right, that means the government has to act on it. So they crack down on migrants, while lacking workers.

Russia has massive financial problems right now, while secondary sanctions hit foreign trade. That means more workers are needed, as Russia can no longer buy as many foreign goods.

However looking at casualties is a good metric to see, how much danger Russia will be in the future. Together with migration problems, this is very likely shrinking their future population by 10% or more, compared to never having launched the full scale invasion.

No worries the Russian government is already solving the butter situation. They just started importing butter from the UAE.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/989968

Prune602 unfortunatly on Twitter writes up on the Russian economy on a regular bases. Here is a pretty decent thread on inflation: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1841884096655720630.html

Russia has 29.57million men between 20-50. So 700k are 2.37% casulties of that group. That is using Russian demographic statistics, which are probably wrong, due to people leaving Russia on mass.

And everybody knows that total market includes fossil fuel and arms companies. That is why there are ESG funds, which do exclude the really nasty companies. Those are pretty easy to buy and can also cover a large field of investments. She has lobbied for divestement from fossil fuels, so she should very much be aware that those options are around, while this has been pointed out for nearly a decade. So really no excuse for that.

How the hell can the presidential candidate of the Green Party own a MILLION DOLLARS OF OIL AND GAS SHARES? How can you complain about Israel murdering children in Gaza, when you own shares in Raytheon, which sells and produces weapons for and in Israel?

That they will be used as standard infantry. If they would be guards or non combat they would get worse gear. As specialized soldiers, they would get tanks, artillery or whatever. Also it is Russian gear and not North Korean.

In other words they will be used for human wave attacks.

Just look [email protected] post history. It is not worth it.

Who do you think is a viable politician, who can win the presidential election next Tuesday and bans private jets and yachts?

The difference is that the Biden line keeps all of Biden’s climate laws and the Trump line kills them. So this is not including any climate laws Harris might introduce, however the difference until 2030 between both scenarios is about the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined! Biden has a lot of flaws, but he has done some actually large scale positive climate action.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-election-win-could-add-4bn-tonnes-to-us-emissions-by-2030/

When the war started pretty much every European military placed some massive orders. So new production mostly did not go to Ukraine. But a lot of weapons are domestic and built in a large quantity. Also not everything from the stockpiles was send to Ukraine. That is just too risky.

So long enough to scale up production and use the EUs large economy.

Europe has quite a bit in place to defend itself without the US. Something like a million soldiers with some pretty good equipment and training. There are issues, but the EU could defend itself fairly well without the US. It is just that having the most powerfull military behind you makes things a lot easier. The problem is that this makes things easier and the US has a massive intresst in looking strong(Taiwan for example).

There is a book about his links to Russia. So that should be possible.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2019-08-27/jeffrey-epstein-russian-ties-craig-unger

Owning your home outright nearly gurantees you have the basic need of housing meet and that is by far the most expensive to meet in developed countries. Food, water, heating and electricity are not that expensive. That gives you quite a bit of security especially when you get older. The big problem is obviously to be able to afford buying a property in the first place, which is hard.

US presidential election

Sort of, but Switzerland is not going to sell you spare parts, ammunition and so forth when you are at war.

Also Switzerland as a neutral country can choose to supply weapons to both sites.

Portugal has very low energy consumption per household and it looks like most cooking is done on oil or gas stoves, which are relativly wastefull.

https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/efficiency-by-sector/households/household-eu.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_consumption_in_households

This is not a tank, but an anti aircraft system design to shoot down drones, missiles and sometimes other aircraft. The Russians claim it to be the best in the world.

https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/