Okay so hear me out. It’s 2350, right? Humanity has expanded to the outer reaches of our solar system. Humaniry is divided into three classes of people, Earthers, Martians and those who live and work in space, Belters.

Mars has become a free nation and is now in the middle of a cold war with Earth. Then one day a ship named the Canterbury disappears and someone named James Holden, an earther working for a Belt based ice hauling company says his ship the Canterbury was destroyed and points the finger at Mars.

They could call the new show something like The Void or The Space Between. 🙃

Haha same. That’s why I started with the other formats. I would hit the sheets, read a page then wake up to my alarm.

I cheat a little bit. I always get the paper, digital and audiobook of whatever I’m reading.

Nothing to do? Paper. On break at work? E-book. Cooking dinner? Audiobook at 2x.

That said, I read the entire first novella in one night in bed and then I downloaded/borrowed everything else.

Such a fantastic series. I read the entire thing over two weeks while I had nothing better to do and I am so glad I did.

Looks like you cross the road when the signal allows it?

I believe ideally these types of crossings allow pedestrians and cyclists to use all four crossings at the same time. Similar to crossings in Japan.

Just my guess with a quick glance.

What do you use your keyboard/computer for and for how long if you don’t mind my asking?

Have you watched any of SNW or are you deciding to pass judgement on a show based on… Nostalgia?

Its a really good show and the musical episode doesn’t feel out of place in an episodic Star Trek show. I think you should give it a good try. The show is a lot of fun and is a return to classic episodic trek with great stories intertwined.

I’m naming my E-Tool Dragula as we speak.

I want one. How much?

Sincerely, man who has dug way too many trenches.

I’m glad I could be of a little help. Nations have been trying to clearly define these things for centuries.

I think your final statement is why I’m here. A lot of internet discourse around war immediately resorts to calling everything a war crime. That’s an incredibly precise label and we can’t always be certain. What I know for sure is that war is hell and undue suffering is wrong.

I responded above I hope that provides enough. Though I didn’t speak to article a).

It may sound like a legal cop-out but some countries make a distinction between “The Red Cross” and “a red Cross”. It’s a weird one. Probably requires more scrutiny.

And as to your question of “Would this be a crime committed in war?” Or “A war crime?” That’s where lots of legalese comes in. It may be that one nation sees it as a crime where one doesn’t. Or the UN finds it a war crime but another organisation doesn’t or is a partial signatory or conscious observer and so on.

This is then something I understand is moved into the restitution phase post war where both nations sit at the table and dole out various legal requirements, PW transfers and the likes. Like a two sided lawsuit but instead of just money it’s money and human lives.

Which is nice.

The part of the article we would be most concerned with would probably be:

(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;

This, in my understanding is generally considered to be actual hospitals and field hospitals;

Transport: ambulance, Helicopters and planes;

Medical equipment: critical equipment and tools;

Medical supplies: Supply drops or small deliveries en route to a military unit.

Ultimately, I’m not a lawyer, I just teach some material. If there was an argument as to whether or not it breaches the protocol that would be up to an international criminal court, maybe UN scrutiny? I start to lose the ball around here.

Thank you for the level headed response! I generally avoid having these conversations because people don’t often react well to me going: “well ackshually…” To you know… Human pain and suffering and the horrors of war.

Hi, this is part of my area of expertise.

Neither nation is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 prohibiting the use of victim operated landmines and booby traps. Nor does either nation recognise the amendments to the Geneva convention made in 1996. Additionally, neither nation is a strict adherent or signatory of many of the Geneva conventions or treaty of the Hague which limit undue suffering. Making this specific act not a war crime.

The boobytrapping of a IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit) we see here adheres to laws outlined in all many of these treaties as they aren’t directly interfering with humanitarian aid.

Without citing the specific articles you may not:

• Target unarmed combatants or NGO workers
• Make false surrender (perfidy)
• Target hospitals, schools, religious sites or specified culturally significant sites; any force held within these areas are protected under the articles until hostile action is taken by them which forces the building or site to lose protected civilian status making it a valid military target.
• Create or alter devices and ammunition to cause undue harm. (Aim to maim rather than kill)

And the one we’re most concerned with in this conversation:

-Target Red Cross, Red Crescent or associated NGO humanitarian aid. Nor may one booby trap or target Humanitarian aid intended to reach soldiers and civilians.

Do you know what isn’t humanitarian aid? A soldier’s personal first aid kit. Why? Because anything owned or operated in war or for war does not have protected status and is a valid military target.

Soldiers have been booby trapping magazines, crates and supplies since the Boer War. It is not a war crime by any article or treaty I know of because tools of war are valid military targets.

Every single NATO soldier has these things drilled into their heads. Any competent soldier knows to never ever ever pick up anything the enemy may have left behind because they can and absolutely will leave things behind to fuck you up.

But I want you to go through the list of things you may not do and tell me how many of those the Russians have done. Because it’s all of them.

I figured I had to give it a fair shake and use it as a companion to Kapital. While I found Marx’s writing to be strongly focused on the philosophy I couldn’t help but shake the feeling throughout Imperialism that Lenin was trying to sell the reader something.

Which makes sense to me as it was published in pamphlets and the likes leading into the revolution.

Though that unshakeable feeling never went away it did confirm a lot of my feelings and thoughts on globalisation, wealth consolidation and so on.

Lenin didn’t get a faithful customer out of me but his writing certainly helped me understand some of my more authoritarian comrades. I don’t have to agree with people completely to stand beside them.

To be completely honest I don’t think Mein Kampf is worth the read and any other derivative that follow it are just worse takes like “The Turner Diaries”.

Turns out ethno-fascists don’t have anything to back them up except fear and hatred so their fiction tends to fall flat.

Thanks!

How did you find Rand’s take on relativism?

I’m quite young so I can only compare it to a few things. It felt to me to just be overwhelmingly “Fuck you, I got mine.” Which is… Interesting to say the least when you build your empire on the back of the workers.

Yeah, it just read like the angry rantings of a man left alone with hateful thoughts for too long. I can’t speak to the quality of German in it and I’m certain some translations make his writings seem academic but they all just fall flat if you take a few hours to read up on economics and policy in Europe around the time he wrote the book.

Just the angry rants of some dude who feels like he isn’t getting what he deserves. Some things never change. We just have podcasts for that now.

I’ve forced myself to read Mein Kampf, Atlas Shrugged, Imperialism by Lenin and various other political works from various philosophies. Do these count?

I’ve found many of them to be dry at best and abhorrent at worst (thanks Hitler).

None of them have changed my mind in drastic ways but have helped me understand the viewpoints of people I talk to.

The point I’m making is that a person who chronically overeats isn’t going to know when “enough is enough”. It’s incredibly easy for a person to overshoot their TDEE and end up gradually gaining weight while only eating until they’re full.

I say this as someone who works out 6 days a week, cycles 250km a week and works a fairly physical job. I probably eat close to 3500 calories a day just to maintain weight and I could still probably have some snacks.

If I wanted to lose weight and not count calories how would I do that? If I wanted to drop body fat and maintain muscle mass how would I do that without counting calories and macros?