- 1 Post
- 7 Comments
31·6 hours agoWhat the sycophant Rutte failed to mention at this gangsters’ get-together is that the reason for this spending spree is the fact that NATO is massively out-gunned by Russia’s powerful military-industrial complex
I believe that Russia has more artillery shell manufacturing capacity. But in general, outside that, I think that it’d be pretty hard to make that case.
kagis
In a keynote speech in London last month, the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte repeated a warning he has made in public at least three times this year: the western alliance is severely lagging behind Moscow on ammunition production.
“In terms of ammunition, Russia produces in three months what the whole of NATO produces in a year,” Rutte said on 10 June, adding that Putin’s war machine is “speeding up, not slowing down".
Rutte, who became chief of the military alliance in October last year, went on to repeat the same warning.
“Let me repeat it again. NATO’s economy is 25 times bigger than Russia’s. It’s 50 trillion (dollars), and the Russian economy is two trillion. That two-trillion-dollar economy is producing four times as much ammunition as the whole of NATO is producing at the moment,” he said.
The Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service estimates that Russia produced or refurbished 400,000 artillery rounds in 2022, multiplying its production more than eleven-fold to produce 4.5 million rounds in 2024.
An analysis by consulting firm Bain & Company for Sky News in May 2024 came to the same conclusion, putting the total number of shells produced or refurbished in 2024 at an estimated 4.5 million rounds.
In 2024, Europe and the US produced an estimated 1.2 million shells per year, according to the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs, compared to Russia’s estimated 4.5 million.
It looks like RT and similar have been repeating the quote while not making it clear that Rutte was talking specifically about artillery shells:
https://www.rt.com/russia/623430-west-shocked-russian-arms-production/
Earlier this year, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that “it’s simply unthinkable” that Russia “should be able to outproduce and outgun” the US-led military bloc. Under US pressure, European NATO states pledged in June to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP.
So if you figure that RT’s content probably reflects the messages that the Kremlin wants put out, the Kremlin is presumably aiming for an image that Russia is more-broadly powering past NATO in arms production.
That’s wild and seems like a lot of wasted time, effort, and money.
In the parent poster’s case — not 4chan, but online gambling — gambling can be used as a way to launder money, since Party A can transfer money into a black box, and Party B pull money back out.
My guess is that this may be a factor driving interest.
Regardless, 4chan is in the US. UK has no power here.
If the US legal system recognizes that a company in the US is doing business in the UK, then the US legal system will view the UK legal system as having jurisdiction and enforce rulings against them from the UK’s legal system.
4chan’s argument here is going to be that they don’t meet that bar. I expect that 4chan is most-likely going to be able to successfully make that argument, but the “doing business” bit does matter.
0·2 days agoWhile avoiding food with lactose is a legit way to deal with it, if you’re not aware, I believe that there’s enzymes that you can take with the food to break it down, same way that you can take Beano to break down the sugars there to avoid flatulence after eating beans.
hits Wikipedia
Sounds like it. I’ve never used it, so I can’t personally endorse it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase
Lactase (EC 3.2.1.108) is an enzyme produced by many organisms and is essential to the complete digestion of whole milk. It breaks down the sugar lactose into its component parts, galactose and glucose. Lactase is found in the brush border of the small intestine of humans and other mammals. People deficient in lactase or lacking functional lactase may experience the symptoms of lactose intolerance after consuming milk products.[1] Microbial β-galactosidase (often loosely referred to as lactase) can be purchased as a food supplement and is added to milk to produce “lactose-free” milk products.
Commercial lactase is used as a medication for lactose intolerance. Since it is an enzyme, its function can be inhibited by the acidity of the stomach. However, it is packaged in an acid-proof tablet, allowing the enzyme to pass through the stomach intact and remain in the small intestine. In the small intestine it can act on ingested lactose molecules, allowing the body to absorb the digested sugar which would otherwise cause cramping and diarrhea. Since the enzyme is not absorbed, it is excreted.
There’s some fairly weird shit that happens on the grounds of therapy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy
Attachment therapy (also called “the Evergreen model”, “holding time”, “rage-reduction”, “compression therapy”, “rebirthing”, “corrective attachment therapy”, “coercive restraint therapy”, and “holding therapy”[1]) is a pseudoscientific mental health intervention intended to treat attachment disorders in children.[2] During the height of its popularity, the practice was found primarily in the United States; much of it was centered in about a dozen locations in Evergreen, Colorado, where Foster Cline, one of its founders, established a clinic in the 1970s.[3]
The practice has resulted in adverse outcomes for children, including at least six documented child fatalities.[4] Since the 1990s, there have been a number of prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children at the hands of “holding therapists” or parents following their instructions. Two of the most well-known cases are those of Candace Newmaker in 2000 and the Gravelles in 2003. Following the associated publicity, some advocates of attachment therapy began to alter views and practices to be less potentially dangerous to children. This change may have been hastened by the publication of a task force report on the subject in January 2006, commissioned by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC), which was largely critical of attachment therapy.[1] In April 2007, ATTACH, an organization originally set up by attachment-based therapists, formally adopted a white paper stating its unequivocal opposition to the use of coercive practices in therapy and parenting, promoting instead newer techniques of attunement, sensitivity and regulation.[5]
Attachment therapy is primarily based on Robert Zaslow’s rage-reduction therapy from the 1960s-1970s and on psychoanalytic theories about suppressed rage, catharsis, regression, breaking down of resistance and defence mechanisms. Zaslow and other early proponents such as Nikolas Tinbergen and Martha Welch used it as a treatment for autism, based on the now discredited belief that autism was the result of failures in the attachment relationship with the mother.
The controversy, as outlined in the 2006 American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) Task Force Report,[1] has broadly centered around “holding therapy”[10] and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures. These include deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring normal social relationships outside the primary caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge. Variants of these treatments have carried various labels that change frequently. They may be known as “rebirthing therapy”, “compression therapy”, “corrective attachment therapy”, “the Evergreen model”, “holding time”, “rage-reduction therapy”, or “prolonged parent-child embrace therapy”.[2][11] Some authors critical of this therapeutic approach have used the term Coercive Restraint Therapy.[12] It is this form of treatment for attachment difficulties or disorders which is popularly known as “attachment therapy”.[2] Advocates for Children in Therapy, a group that campaigns against attachment therapy, give a list of therapies they state are attachment therapy by another name.[13] They also provide a list of additional therapies used by attachment therapists which they consider to be unvalidated.[14]
Matthew Speltz of the University of Washington School of Medicine describes a typical treatment taken from The Center’s material (apparently a replication of the program at the Attachment Center, Evergreen) as follows:
Like Welsh [sic] (1984, 1989), The Center induces rage by physically restraining the child and forcing eye contact with the therapist (the child must lie across the laps of two therapists, looking up at one of them). In a workshop handout prepared by two therapists at The Center, the following sequence of events is described: (1) therapist ‘forces control’ by holding (which produces child ‘rage’); (2) rage leads to child ‘capitulation’ to the therapist, as indicated by the child breaking down emotionally (‘sobbing’); (3) the therapist takes advantage of the child’s capitulation by showing nurturance and warmth; (4) this new trust allows the child to accept ‘control’ by the therapist and eventually the parent. According to The Center’s treatment protocol, if the child ‘shuts down’ (i.e., refuses to comply), he or she may be threatened with detainment for the day at the clinic or forced placement in a temporary foster home; this is explained to the child as a consequence of not choosing to be a ‘family boy or girl.’ If the child is actually placed in foster care, the child is then required to ‘earn the way back to therapy’ and a chance to resume living with the adoptive family.[15]
According to the APSAC Task Force,
A central feature of many of these therapies is the use of psychological, physical, or aggressive means to provoke the child to catharsis, ventilation of rage, or other sorts of acute emotional discharge. To do this, a variety of coercive techniques are used, including scheduled holding, binding, rib cage stimulation (e.g., tickling, pinching, knuckling), and/or licking. Children may be held down, may have several adults lie on top of them, or their faces may be held so they can be forced to engage in prolonged eye contact. Sessions may last from 3 to 5 hours, with some sessions reportedly lasting longer … Similar but less physically coercive approaches may involve holding the child and psychologically encouraging the child to vent anger toward her or his biological parent.[6]
Psychiatrist Bruce Perry cites the use of holding therapy techniques by caseworkers and foster parents investigating a Satanic Ritual Abuse case in the late 1980s, early 1990s, as instrumental in obtaining lengthy and detailed alleged “disclosures” from children.
Note that while the US does not recognize a US based server as being under foreign jurisdiction just due to being accessible in that country, there are also some subtle rules that can cause it to be considered to be doing business there by the US legal system, even if they don’t have a physical presence there and are not directly selling product there. One of those is targeted advertising to people in that foreign country.
I don’t know whether selling ads aimed at people in a country qualifies. It may not, or that bit might not have been hammered out by courts yet, but if I were 4chan, I’d be really careful on that, as they’re explicitly mentioning that they have a British userbase on that ad sales page:
Location: United States (47%), United Kingdom (7%), Canada (6%), Australia (4%), Germany (4%)
Snoop Dogg had never been entirely comfortable with controversial content being in media that kids might consume.