Posts by analogbear70

Melissa Rivera5 said:That would be a total nightmare, honestly. Not exactly the moderately optimistic outcome I was hoping for. It would basically mean the USA is actively siding with the Russian Federation and just giving them a free pass to do whatever they want.

What you're doing is a classic "sandwich" move. You start off and end with something people will actually like—or at least what you think they'll dig—just to soften everyone up and make it look like you're on their side. But it's not even something you necessarily believe, I guess. The middle part is where you slip in what you actually want to say.

Sandwich:
Bread: Russia is the aggressor.
Meat: I mean, honestly, the Ukrainians are basically Nazis at this point, so they really need to just grab whatever peace deal comes their way, even if it means losing half their land.
Kruh: I mean, honestly? The Russians don't deserve a single inch of Ukraine.

I absolutely love it when someone feels the need to explain my own thoughts back to me... thanks, bye.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Look, just stop feeding into that mindless propaganda you find on those racist forums. It’s honestly exhausting.

So, all of you supporters—the ones who worship at the altar of Putin and his whole neo-fascist ideology, those who basically make excuses for Russia’s fascist aggression against Ukraine—it looks like you've finally hit the "bargaining" stage of grief. I guess that's just how it goes..

You’ve already moved past the denial stage, I suppose. Now it's just one shock after another regarding the Russian Army's recent military blunders. It honestly felt like everyone was just waiting for that inevitable moment when the Russian forces would start retreating in a panic ahead of the decisive Ukrainian offensive. Maybe we all saw it coming, or maybe we were just too stunned to admit it. I don't know.

Now that you can't even convince yourselves anymore that the Russian military is some unstoppable force—all those claims about the Armata, the Su-57, or those supposed "unstoppable" Kinzhals... it’s all just nonsense, really—things have shifted. I mean, after what happened in Bucha and Izium, nobody can honestly look the other way regarding the criminal nature of this Russian aggression. It’s impossible to deny. And so, naturally, the excuses and the bullshit have started flowing in earnest.
- But honestly, everyone’s really just the same in the end. I mean, you look at the Ukrainians and see criminals too, targeting civilians, slaughtering children... it just goes around in circles, I guess. Maybe it's all just one big cycle of the same old violence. They’re forcing minorities into mobilization, the leadership there is straight-up Nazi, and Zelenskyy is basically auctioning off Ukraine piece by piece. It feels like Russia is just fighting a war against NATO mercenaries at this point... in Ukraine. I don't know. Maybe it's all just a setup.

That’s just what they call bargaining, I suppose. That's all it really is. It’s really just that stage of recovery where you have to face the loss—specifically, losing those sickly little illusions about Mother Russia. You know, that idea that she's this benevolent, all-encompassing force, somehow too kind for her own good, practically suffocating under the weight of her own desire to spread goodness to everyone else... I guess it's more like a delusion than anything else. Maybe. But we're getting there, I suppose.

Appeasing criminal, aggressive regimes has never actually brought peace in all of human history. I mean, looking back at how things usually go, it just seems like a losing game. Maybe we like to tell ourselves it works, but I guess history says otherwise. It’s always just a temporary pause before things get even worse.
Never. Not in a million years.

This is a pretty ugly attack and a complete deflection of the argument. Every single post starts with the claim that Russia is the aggressor and that they don't deserve an inch of Ukrainian land, followed by more of this nonsense. I've been following the situation in Ukraine intensely for over ten years. It's tough living with an aggressor in your backyard, but you manage. You wait for better times to make a move. Even the old Republic of Ragusa survived under much worse conditions. Since the Maidan, we've needed more wisdom than anything else. None of that changes the fact that the aggressor is guilty. There's no point in talking at this level. I'm out. Thanks.

hollowdriver13 said:http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182

Do yourself a favor and actually read what Putin was personally writing back in 2021 regarding Ukrainians and their nation. After seeing that, tell me again how anyone could have avoided a conflict with a guy like him.

I’ll say it again: if things had been handled more intelligently, this could have been avoided. That doesn't excuse the aggressor—Russia—but rather highlights the failure. The reality is that no one from the UN onwards (aside from the Chinese) is calling for a ceasefire, negotiations, or peace. It’s just weapons, weapons, weapons. Why wasn't equipment being sent to us? Why were we forced to wander the globe like beggars, pleading for help while being treated like an afterthought, all while Zelenskyy calls out the very leaders he needs? Why were we hit with embargos while everyone else looked the other way? We offered up a quarter of our territory before Operation Storm, which I believe ended up in court later. Even then, there was intense domestic opposition, and Feral was constantly critical, while the World media published nothing but half-truths about the downsides of our newly formed nation. None of that exists now. And yet, the Russians remain the aggressors; occupied lands deserve better.

gentlestag15 said:Lavrov let slip some nonsense about Nazis in Kyiv being supported by the West and stormed out of the session; now I see some folks here claiming we actually have to play nice with those kinds of assholes.
View on twitter

China's statement is interesting—they don't seem to view anyone as a Putin ally, even in their wildest rhetoric.

“Sovereignty and territorial integrity of All countries should be respected , ” Wang says about China's stance on the #warinUkraine.

I’ve maintained from the start that a wiser approach was needed to prevent this unfortunate war by the Russian aggressor. You can say whatever you want, but that is the reality. I sincerely hope I won't be sitting here in a month writing about how a nuclear war could have been avoided.

hiddeneagle98 said:Man, you clearly aren't getting it: you're talking about a planet that's shaking in its boots at the thought of Putin, a planet that practically deserves to be blown to smithereens.

And what can I even say to that? It’s all easy to play hero when you're behind a screen. If someone actually has their finger on a nuclear trigger, you take them seriously—otherwise, all this talk is completely pointless. If things were different, the US would have moved on North Korea a long time ago. We can't let the whole world go up in flames just because of Putin's madness, or even because of Zelenskyy or Biden. If you know someone who actually has the power to pull the trigger, you should be calming them down, not egging them on. You wait patiently and let time do its work. Tens of thousands will die on both sides regardless of nuclear weapons, and nothing is going to change unless people start de-escalating.

History shows us this happens quite often. You start by seeking a ceasefire, easing up just enough on sanctions to facilitate prisoner swaps, and shifting the narrative so it doesn't look like we're dealing with Hitler on both sides of the Atlantic and in Russia. Get the negotiations moving. Structure the terms so these aggressors don't feel like they've suffered a total, humiliating defeat—regardless of how much they've actually invaded. We saw this same approach applied with the Mexicans. Once the gunfire dies down, you gradually escalate things step by step. Let it take ten years if necessary; Putin won't be around forever, and eventually, Russia will pull back. Pushing too hard and poking a wounded bear only leads to catastrophe.

This guy hits the nail on the head:

It’s the same point I keep making: the West needs to dial back the rhetoric because Russia isn't going to budge. I'm convinced that de-escalating the tension could actually lead to somewhere productive. Look, let's be real—they have nuclear weapons, and that’s a reality that could end us all. Regardless of how you slice it, we need a voice of reason coming from the West, because right now, there isn't one to be found in Russia, and nobody there seems interested in finding it either.

Kate Cook27 said:Look, you can only negotiate with people who actually want to talk. If things went the Russians' way—if they got Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—they’d probably be asking for Kharkiv too, provided we don't count the part where they "organized retreats" while Ukrainians were supposedly in a panic. Then, five years down the road, they'll just roll back in for the rest of Ukraine, and everyone will be expected to step aside and hand over whatever they want because, hey, they have nukes. Who's to blame for the fact that the Russians are living in 1737 and refuse to move forward? You can't negotiate with people who only understand brute force.

The West's response here is to flood Ukraine with weapons, whereas our approach was an embargo and talks. Who was sending us aid packages? Nobody. I'll say it plainly: the West (meaning the USA and the UK) genuinely seems focused on bleeding Russia dry without giving a damn about what happens to Ukraine in the process. Russia is the aggressor, which makes them dangerous if they're strong, but even more unpredictable if they're weak. That's a dynamic we need to keep in mind.

William Anderson5 said:It wasn't the world or this forum that irrationally escalated the conflict by announcing mobilization—it was Putin.

Sure, but the reality is that the world isn't aiming for de-escalation; it's aiming for a Russian defeat. And that’s dangerous for everyone involved. Let me be clear: Russia is the aggressor. Ignoring that would be reckless, yet there seems to be zero effort from the West to lower the temperature. Instead, it feels like they are pushing for a total knockout blow—one side or the other—with the goal of ensuring Russia emerges as depleted as possible. They haven't earned anything else, and peace isn't on the table for the West right now, at least not yet. I remember when we had to negotiate with the insurgents back in the day, offering calculated concessions and trying everything until we finally got the green light for the major offensive. Even then, we were halted near the border because of threats involving US aircraft. We didn't get weapons; we got an embargo, leaving us essentially stranded. Of course, making concessions to Russia wouldn't be "fair," but we were expected to make them just to stop the bloodshed. That isn't happening here. Because of that, the question remains: how does this all end?

It’s honestly tragic what this has turned into. I can only hope that common sense eventually prevails. Russian aggression shows no signs of stopping, yet I don't see many voices here or even in the wider world pushing for actual de-escalation. We saw how pressure was applied on our side—weapon embargos, endless rounds of negotiations, and finally that infamous Z4 plan that would have basically handed over a state within a state to the insurgents. Here, there isn't even a whisper of trying to appease the Russians by treating them like some sort of "great power," and frankly, that lack of recognition is what stings them most amidst their defeats. The bottom line is that Russia is trying to bleed everything dry—down to the very last Ukrainian—before they attempt to carve up territory and drag us all back into a Dark Age for the next two centuries. That’s a dangerous gamble that could pull everyone under. How should we face an aggressor? I don't have a simple answer. All I know is that right now, I see zero interest in settling this conflict. Just like how we had to exhaust every single other option before Operation Storm, this feels like the only path left.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Look, that whole "attack" argument is wild. It’s like saying you should help a friend instead of standing up to a bully who's beating them senseless. I mean, Putler was already complaining by the second day of the war that they hadn't just hung Zelenskyy and surrendered yet. Now, suddenly, the West is the bad guy because they're helping Ukraine? From their perspective, it’s making a quick victory harder. And then you get people saying, "Yeah, the Russians have a point, it would be awesome if they could just have a fast and easy win." Like, how messed up do you have to be to follow that kind of logic?

Folks, sometimes you need to use your head instead of just charging like a bull into a wall. We're hearing these massive announcements about millions of people heading out to liberate territory. In reality, half of them wouldn't make it out alive. Nobody is calling for dialogue, a ceasefire, or any kind of attempt to de-escalate this madness. Back during our own civil war, there were constant negotiations and attempts at peace, even if only on paper. There were even periods when the fighting near besieged Ottawa actually subsided. You simply cannot defeat a violent man who has a gun in his pocket. If you swing harder, he just pulls the trigger. That doesn't mean you surrender; it means you act with wisdom. For us to have moved toward liberation back then, we had to offer the aggressor a state-within-a-state option, which they rejected, and only then could we move forward. Here, we're talking about sending hundreds of thousands directly into the meat grinder, and nobody says a word... does anyone have any sense or conscience left? We urgently need some kind of ceasefire, any kind of truce, just to stop the shooting. Even Putin won't live for another 300 years; eventually, the leadership over there will change. Russia will likely buckle after a decade of isolation, and a new government will return the occupied territories. That will happen much sooner than liberating those lands by force of arms.

feralhawk45 said:What should America have done to avoid the war in '91?
When someone's entire platform is built on attacking you, denying your right to exist, and trying to force you back under their thumb... your only real option is to fight back. There is no "balancing" act in that scenario.

Comparing Americans to Ukrainians is a flawed comparison. Back then—about 30 years ago—Ukraine had it relatively easy, much like other former USSR states. We, on the other hand, were left entirely to our own devices, abandoned by the very people who are shouting the loudest today. And no, it isn't because Ukraine is somehow morally superior in its ideals; it's simply because they presented a much larger threat to the opposition. We were fighting for "independence," whereas Ukraine secured its "independence" somewhat easily, only to spend the last 30 years spinning in circles between corrupt leaders backed by either the West or the East. Sure, there were missteps along the way, and well, here we are. Everything shifted after Maidan; it was fuel for the fire of Russian imperialism, which was just waiting for the chance to grab Crimea while simultaneously fueling unrest in the East. The Gordian knot tightened, and from that moment on, any solution involving Ukrainian Crimea was effectively dead. To be clear, I am not defending the aggressor (Russia is the aggressor, and only a fool would argue otherwise). I am merely pointing out that we should have played the hand we were dealt more strategically—it was possible.

Kate Cook27 said:So, what was Ukraine supposed to do?

They should have learned how to balance things out and avoid getting dragged into this mess. Unfortunately, we live in a world where freedom and democracy exist mostly on paper. Despite all international laws and regulations, the strong simply trample the weak and expect their interests to be respected. It’s the same story whether you look at Israel and interventions in Syria, the USA and its various global interventions, or Russia and what is likely the most reckless form of aggression in recent history. The seizure of Crimea and the separatism in the east followed the Maidan protests, which were largely driven by NGOs. To be clear, none of that justifies Russia's aggression; it's just the unfortunate reality of our world. When you live next door to a bully, you shouldn't fall for being egged on by another bully, because they'll end up taking it out on you instead. Comparing this to my own country's history doesn't work—we weren't being funded or armed by the West; we were essentially left to fend for ourselves. Furthermore, America wasn't some massive military powerhouse of three or four major forces like the myths suggest; it was quite hollowed out from within. And the leadership back then wasn't even fully committed to complete independence until the war actually started gaining momentum.

goldenowl73 said:Look, here's the actual logic: she was walking around in a tiny little skirt near the courthouse, which pretty much invited the whole mess, then things went south during the assault, and she just turned on me. Honestly, what else was I supposed to do?

That comparison only works in an ideal world. Sometimes you just have to be smart—don't walk through dark alleys in a mini-skirt or withdraw cash from an ATM while a group of punks is lurking right behind you.
It doesn't excuse the attacker; it's simply about being smart enough to reduce your own risk. Russia is the aggressor, the occupier, and an imperialist power. However, if they are your neighbors, you have to play your cards more carefully to prevent this kind of thing from happening. That’s the plain truth. And again, Russia is the aggressor, and there is absolutely no justification for occupation.

It’s just pure tragedy and grief watching this unfold...
I have to admit, I didn't see this coming. Any rational person has to condemn this act of aggression. At the same time, if Ukraine had played their cards differently—if they hadn't fallen for all that Western instigation—we might not be here. There was more than enough time to settle things at the negotiating table. In the end, everyone will be sitting down to talk, I just hope we can reach an agreement with far fewer lives lost first. I find myself agreeing with President Milanović on this one.

vividraven26 said:Is there some yellow paint on the curb there, or did they actually put up a sign or something? Because if either one of those things is happening, then the whole situation is pretty damn obvious.

Thanks for the input.
The yellow paint has faded and the bollard is dented. To reiterate, this lot has never actually been enforced; if it were, at least 40 cars would be towed every single day because everyone parks "incorrectly." I suspect they’re just waiting to implement paid parking—which, frankly, I don't know why they haven't done yet—before they start regulating this section. My guess is the lot lacks a valid occupancy permit (does such a thing even exist for a parking lot?), because if you take up two spots in front of an apartment building in Brooklyn, the city will tow you instantly. That isn't happening here.
Thanks

I’m looking for some advice here..
On my way back from a trip, I ended up leaving my car in a "handicapped" spot about 25 minutes away from my place. I put "handicapped" in quotes because, honestly, the parking situation on this street (near downtown Washington, D.C.) is a total joke. Up until this specific block, everything is paid parking and strictly enforced, but once you hit this stretch, all bets are off. Over the last decade, the city has repainted the lines multiple times, but they never actually extend the paid zone to this street. All those "marked" spots are basically a fantasy; nobody follows them. In a row meant for five cars, you'll consistently see six or seven, most of them double-parking across two spots. I actually asked the local parking authority why they don't just expand the zone to include this street, and they just gave me some bureaucratic nonsense about not having the authorization to do so...
Basically, the whole area is just unregulated wild parking. Those painted lines—including the handicap spot—seem to be there just to prep for the day they finally decide to expand the zone (which hasn't happened all year).
To be clear, I’m not an idiot; I would never park in a legitimate handicap spot, and I’ve never even used this one before. It was an exceptional circumstance—my wife was feeling really unwell due to the heat and the long drive, and I didn't have much of a choice. I’m wondering if there's anything I can do to avoid a ticket or getting towed. The entire lot feels like it lacks any official permit or zoning approval, because people have been parking here for years and I have yet to see a single tow truck touch anyone—not even on that "handicap" spot, where 99% of the time, it's just a regular car parked there anyway.
Thanks

electricorca112 said:So, you think it’s perfectly fine to live off the grid in Washington, D.C., soaking up all the perks of the city while dodging the local surcharges everyone else pays—not to mention skipping out on local vehicle registration by keeping it filed elsewhere—but somehow, it becomes an unforgivable sin when a D.C. resident heads out to their weekend getaway outside the city? 🍿

Where on earth did I say that? Seriously, what kind of logic are you using to reach that conclusion? It’s enough to give someone whiplash.
He basically went on an unprovoked, chauvinistic rant, telling Dalmatians and Herzegovinians they need to pack up and leave Washington, D.C. It was honestly embarrassing to hear someone say something that ignorant, especially given everything going on right now.

Hey everyone!

I'm looking for some advice here...
Between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 TI and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, which one would you recommend for animation, 3D work, or video editing?
Hardware isn't exactly my specialty, but from what I've read, Adobe (I'm currently running Adobe Creative Suite 6) apparently runs into issues with the 10XX series due to the Pascal architecture...
Does anyone happen to know if After Effects faces those same hurdles when using the 980 TI?
Also, how does the Autodesk Maya plugin perform on each of these cards?
From what I've gathered, they're roughly equal when it comes to 3ds Max—has anyone actually tested this?
And how do they hold up in video editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro or Sony Vegas Pro?
Thanks for the help,
best regards