AeonFelis @ AeonFelis @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,293

Joined

2 yr. ago

Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.

1. Again - I believe Albert was specifically talking about denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army. Unless the enemy is in there long enough to start farming your land, their only have two options to get food - they can bring it from their home country (or some other country they control, or one that's friendly enough to sell it to them) or they can try to get it from your country. You can sabotage their first option by attacking their supply lines, and as for the second option - hopefully your own citizens won't give them food, either because they don't want to be invaded or because they are afraid of their own government. Or both. Either way, you'll have to protect them, of course, because the invading army may try to steal food from them. Even if you do everything right you probably won't be able to hermetically block their food supply - but you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them. It takes a lot of food to feed an army.
2. Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.

Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.

Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man... these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?

30. Stresses that all States should make all efforts to ensure that their international policies of a political and economic nature, including international trade agreements, do not have a negative impact on the right to food in other countries;

Only "of a political and economic nature". Are military actions considered as "political"?

Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493

What's actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as "Reaffirming" and "Recalling" and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as "Decides" "Appeals" and "Approves".

So... I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it's operative, and if it is it's worth reading the rest of the paragraph?

And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law

If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?

I think it's about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn't mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?

Or... does it?

A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files

Starting to read it...

It... starts with six pages of "recalling this", "acknowledging that"? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first...

Says 179 when I try (not sure why it's different) but only 47 of them are the actual article - the rest are references.

Back in the 19th century, Henry George suggested to solve this with a very high land value tax.

The idea, in a nutshell, is that a good chunk of the worth of a property is not the building itself but the land it is built on - and that component does not come from the landlord's investment, it comes from the community's effort. Take that away, and housing prices will dramatically drop (or at least - stop rising so steeply) because real estate will no longer be such an attractive investment avenue, since most of the value that comes from the land will be taxed away. The part that remains - the value of the building itself - is the part that landlords really do have to build and maintain themselves.

I'm usually skeptical about economic ideologies that claim to be both morally correct and utility increasing - simply because I've never seen an economic ideology that doesn't claim to be both these things. But here I think Georgism did manage to show a direct link between the two, so I'm more inclined to believe in it.

Is it "dumbass" (a single word) or is it "dumb/ass" (relation)?

Post on social media, mostly

Americans use it as an excuse to avoid converting to metric.

I suspect they are hoping to get their hands on some radioactivity which will turn them into an animal-human hybrid.

They should create a model that'd only trained on the content of .tex files.

Maybe, but they're cats, not dogs. Looking after them is not as nearly as much time consuming.

So the fragment thing really is necessary, because it'd technically be a different URL and my new NFT will be the first one to match it.

Wait what? I thought it was the hash of the URL, and the same URL generates the same hash (that's why I thought about changing it by using the fragment - which I've mistakenly called "shard" (not sure where I heard that name exactly...))

Every time I think cryptocurrency can't get any dumber, and every time I'm proven wrong...

Not related to the outage itself, but I wonder... can I take an existing NFT's URL, add a shard (or modify the existing one?), and mint it as a new NFT?

decent

You've misspelled "descent"

That place you were going to will owe to give you the thing you want as a reward for your effort. This is exactly how the world works.

Yes

I prefer Borking News and it'd just be videos of dogs.