marsa

doing some reason.. uhh intuitioning i imagine brazil and portugal might have some sort of a visa-free deal going on in which case llama 4 might actually be right here?

see the problem here is you somehow associate socialism -- i.e. socialist urbanism and architecture -- with dystopia

i still remember the first time i tried pierogi at a music festival in Poland after a few beers -- they were amazing

but years later that experience was overshadowed when i tried their traditional zurek soup -- now that was divine

anecdotal, but my experience a year ago when i travelled international was: 2/2 delays by OEBB that made me miss connections (and absolutely rude and inconsiderate customer service reps in Vienna HBF on top of that), 1/1 on time trains by DB ICE

sadly no, it is an unsolved problem of scholarly publishing imo. on the one hand you have the reputable journals following the traditional publishing process that take pride in their high rejection rates -- these require a large percentage of desk rejections to avoid flooding their reviewers with sub-par papers. thus they'll inevitably have some quality papers fall through the cracks + some flashy sub-par papers making the cut.

on the other hand you have the pay-to-publish journals that have a financial incentive to push as many papers through peer review -- these thrive on sub-par papers that are technically just barely 'good enough', but the upside is that the real good ones will also make it through. however, they inevitably face reviewer fatigue, and the most valuable ones will quit reviewing if they often send them low-quality papers. so basically once in a while they'll publish top notch research without being aware of it.

i'm not aware of any middle-ground solutions out there and it certainly feels like a tough problem to solve.

a desk rejection is when the editor in chief (or managing editor, or whoever is the one first receiving the submitted paper) decides to reject the submission without sending it out for peer review

basically a judgment call by the person in charge of a journal that the paper is not interesting or impactful enough to warrant going through with the rest of the review/publishing process

GP is getting downvoted because it's a shit take. ethnic tensions in Kosovo date back to before the break up of Yugoslavia -- like early 1980s at the latest. Serbia may feel that now is an opportune moment to stir shit up again, and Russia may be supportive, but to suggest that Kremlin is pulling all the strings here is plain wrong.

other commenters in this thread display much more nuanced and informed perspectives.

This piece of investigative journalism has been posted on HN some 9 months ago. I'm reposting it now because a) it's a really thoroughly researched article, and b) it's presented in an interesting and engaging way (edit: on desktop at least; I haven't checked how it looks on mobile).

So, dear HN: trust me when I say it's worth spending some of your time on this one even if you're not interested in the subject matter itself

shown themselves to you maybe, but have in mind that post 1945 plenty of couped/invaded countries around the world could come up with a convincing case painting US as a bad actor too

this is where you should search for nuance and complexity, whereas dropping a-bombs on civilians is a clear cut case of an immoral act no matter how many lives it supposedly saves

it's 2/2 real world cases so 'all cases' seems like a legit conclusion to me, but if you can come with an ethical hypothetical a-bomb dropping scenario i'm all ears

imagine Russia using the same justification for dropping one on a Ukrainian city and suddenly all complexity and nuance is gone

it's morally indefensible in all cases

i haven't heard / read his speeches but isn't that just regular political speech? 'we'll make x great again' where they invoke some mythical glorious past x and make grand promises to appease the masses?

i'll check the book out, but if there's less speculative stuff like leaked cables, war plans, fact based reporting etc out there i'd be more receptive to the idea that the Russians were genuinely about to blitzkrieg Europe if all went well in Ukraine

it just sounds too ridiculous and farfetched