Big Miku

My first distrobution was the good old Ubuntu for a laptop that I used for school. I stuck with that for 2-3 years. During that time I really, really wanted to try out new distros, but I didn’t want to lose my files and such, so I just stuck with it. During this time I also changed my desktop’s os to Ubuntu, but I am not sure when I did it.

After I got a Laptop due to the previous being old and broken, I tried out Arch Linux and grew to love it more than Ubuntu, so I changed out my desktop’s os to that as well when I got a new ssd and was migrating to it. I used Arch for another year or two, before my laptop had a disk failure and I had to reinstall. I installed Debian onto it, since I was feeling lazy and didn’t want to go through the mess of installing Arch again. And then later I also installed Windows on it with dualboot for games that didn’t want to work with Proton.

So basically I now use Arch on the desktop and Debian/Windows on laptop.

No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don’t break other human rights.

I mean it kinda does with the whole “freedom of expression” thing it has.

I could be wrong on this, but that’s how I interperted it.

Because of those pesky human rights that mandate “freedom of religion” or whatever.

Let’s hope we have better luck next time I guess.

Oh damn, an article containing a topic about Russia and Cuba. I hope this post will contain a civil conversation about the topic without it derailing into a giant fighting pit about the United States.

The first agreement collapsed due to the seperatist taking over an airport in Donetsk and saying they won’t follow it anymore.

The second Minsk agreement basically said “Stop fighting and Ukraine gets full control of the seperatist areas after elections and a special territory status for the areas”. After offering them the special status the seperatists just said no.

Refer to point one

Yes I did say that.

Firstly. The main cause of concern with depleted uranium is that according to some research it can linger around the area where they were used, and give people depleted uranium poisoning. Note that there hasn’t yet been any concrete evidence to prove this is the case.

Secondly. Ukraine themselves asked for these weapons, so they have most likely gone over the risks of using depleted uranium ammunition and have deemed their usefulness to outweigh the potential health down sides that comes from using depleted uranium.

Thirdly. The rounds given to Ukraine are armor piercing rounds, so the chances of them being fired at buildings are minimal, thus minimizing the possibility of them affecting people if they really were as dangerous as some research tells us.

So what’s the difference between lead, tungsten, and depleted uranium? They all cause cancer and other symptoms, and both tungsten and depleted uranium must be decontaminated if the tank carrying them is destroyed.

And from what I’ve read you will die of the toxicity before you will die of the radiation.

In the follow follow up report they said that the risks of the DU dust causing any harm are minimal.

Sounds plausible, but wouldn’t it cause the same types of effects in Bosnia if that were the case?

But I said that in my original comment, didn’t I? Maybe I just said it a but unclearly, since English isn’t my first language, but it’s there.

Here’s the part I mentioned it.

With the exception that you inhale it or eat it

From what I’ve read depleted uranium is not proven to cause cancer, nor is it not proven (With the exception that you inhale it or eat it).

In Iraq it’s still up to debate if it causes cancer or birth defects, since burning buildings and other burning stuff also causes a lot of nasty things to humans.

From what I’ve read they were also used in Bosnia, and they haven’t had similiar effects to Iraq.

So let the Ukrainians have their depleted uranium.

I honestly forgot where this meme was posted and thought it was a really weird shitpost.

But wouldn’t that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.

Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word “good” was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word “good” for every single town? Of course it wouldn’t, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.

But that wasn’t said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.

Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?

Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don’t even know what it means

Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state.

The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn’t happen.