sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] bluGill@kbin.run 3 points 1 month ago

capturing would be of little use as Ukraine doesn't have ammunition to them, or even a way to get more. Efforts to get Ukraine more artillery ammunition are focused on NATO standard rounds which will not fix in these.

This is the typical days haul of artillery for a long time. However Russia is known of have a lot of artillery in various stockpiles. The number destroyed isn't the point so much as it forced Russia to go back for even older artillery to replace it. Already we see them using systems designed in WWII (AFAIK nothing that saw service in WWII, but things designed then and built after the way).

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 17 points 1 month ago

If you burn that oil instead you would run out in about 10 hours assuming you were going for the same energy output. A lot oi oil is in them for sure, but compared to a oil burned for power it is nothing.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 9 points 1 month ago

Also forces gussia to divert troops for defense.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 25 points 1 month ago

Targeted layoffs are tricky to pull off. You can be sued for wrongful dismissal and then you need to show you were not targeting that person by anything other than random. You can easially lay off everyone on a project. Anything where you select individuals is risky if they can somehow argue you choose them because of some status (minority or whatever - even white male is not a status you can dismiss someone on) . Don't get me wrong, companies lay off part of a department all the time - but they would prefer to not do that.

Even if someone quits from a department you don't want to lose people from, you can just transfer an employee from a different department that didn't lose enough people. So this is good enough and someone who quits cannot sue.

Also if someone quits they cannot collect unemployment. Generally governments track how often a company lays off employees and charges higher unemployment rates to those who lay off more people so getting people to quit saves you here too.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 3 points 1 month ago

generally it isn't enforced

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 7 points 1 month ago

Most countries tell you to renounce after you gain the new so it isn't a problem. A few allos dual citizenhip. (maybe most allow dual? I seem to recall that but it is outside where I'm sure)

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 43 points 1 month ago

The market does tend to overreact so this is possible a sign to buy low. I can't be bothered to check the fundamenals but it seems unlikely that amd is a better investment long term. If you are not looking at least 5 years to the future stocks are a bad idea.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 2 points 1 month ago

It probably wasn't before. Hard to say, but it is unlikely this won't cause a limit. Someone will need to do without after this though it probably won't be drones. Still however that is just got a worse life even if they never know it.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 12 points 1 month ago

i can't wait for the day content is there. I always look there first but too often I can't find anything close to what I want.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 62 points 1 month ago

Meanwhile just as good chefs that didn't get the fame break (or possibly better but their personality means they shouldn't be let out of the kitchen) are struggling to make ends meet.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 6 points 1 month ago

Because the customer and user are not the same people and insurance is keeping the costomer happy. High prices mean I cannot afford to quit my job or retire early. I have to have a job to have any form of insurance at all. It is great for the hr department that buys my insurance. In theory I can buy my own on the market but that means the thousand dollars a month my employer is paying gets thrown away.

view more: next ›

bluGill

joined 3 months ago