MrMakabar

In storage about 3657 using satellite images of Russian storage bases. However only 700 of them are in good condition. Something like 1111 might not be saveable and the 1846 left will need quite some work to make them useable. Also most of them are old versions of T-72 or T-62.

However Russia increased the number of tanks on the front line and is producing brand new tanks.

Russia produces 2million 152mm and 122mm shells per year. Rheinmetall alone is at 700.000 155mm shells per year by 2025 alone. The difference is not that big, but many European countries are increasing stockpiles and there is a need to train their own militaries, which requires firing some of them.

However the number of shells matters much less then the enemies they destroy. NATO artillery is much much more precise. So they need one shell to hit a target, whereas Russia might need ten. The other big part is air power. NATO unlike Ukraine can destroy Russia air defence and then use a lot of bombs to create a break through in the line. This just can not be easiyl transfered to Ukraine, as training pilots and ground crews takes years.

They are also in Virginia in Energy Park Drive, Leesburg, VA, USA, but they tend to not put big banners on them. It is surprisingly difficult to google Google data centers

Neither the US has only a few states with a phase out of fossil fuel vehicles being legally binding. The UK has nothing whatsortever. The EU seems to go for a different startegy with a sales ban in law starting 2035, while many EU countries banned fracking, which could be used to produce a large share of the local oil consumption.

Wolves do not hunt lynx. Nothing really does unless they are young or sick.

However, they are very much released close to wolf territory:

That is true of every generation. Call it a human flaw.

Since 2022 the number of Russian tanks has “doubled” – from 1,700 to 3,500. Artillery systems have tripled, and armoured personnel carriers gone up from 4,500 to 8,900.

That explains why Russian storage is empyting up so quickly. At least partly. After all we know Russian losses are massive.

Flying is one of the most emitting activities in the world. For many Europeans it will be 20% of their carbon footprint for a single vacation.

• Washing area for clothes, with washing machines and clothes lines.
• Tool liberary for common tools like hammers, drills and so forth
• shared transport like car and a large cargo bike

Another big one, which is often forgotten is to add space for shops or similar commercial use cases on the ground floor. Mixed use minimizes the length people have to travel. Also some of them can be in the back area. There are quite a few commercial spaces, which do not really need street access. Things like doctors offices, lawyers, but also many craftspeople come to mine(as long as it does not smell, is toxic or loud).

I do not remove the word "fuck" for the sake of advertising. I remove it, when it is used to insult other people. "Fuck the Cult of Productivity" is fine, but "Fuck who ever thought about the term 'underconsumption'." is just an insult to whoever came up with the term.

How is it a strawman you clearly said that consumerism has no impact on climate change here:

Good for them for taking a stand against consumerism, personal shopping habits (even collectively, they equal less than a drop in an ocean) aren’t going to change neither climate change, nor inflation.

You probably did not mean it, but I thought I have to clear that up.

This “the big guys up top, have to solve the crisis” is just a way to deny any sort of responsiblilty and therefore ends up without any sort of action.

As for that, I have seen that way to often. Classic alternative to "but China".

Just look at some research. So when you want more solar panels in your community, a good idea is to install solar on your roof first. That makes you 63% more likely to convince others to do the same. This can lead to tipping points being reached, which have a much wider impact. At this point the movement can be used to change the underlying system.

You keep believing that, and continue to be completely non critical of who is promoting that notion to you and why

This is were it becomes important to look at what the campaigns actually try to do. BPs famous carbon footprint did try to make everybody understand that the y use fossil fuels. It did not lobby to stop driving and take public transport instead. Same story with many recycling campaigns. They go for throw it in the bin, rather then show you how to not use as much plastic. The key in those campaigns is not to show a viable alternative, but to make people feel helpless. After all, when there is a working individual action, people might lobby to make it mandatory and that destroys their business. BP does not run ads to buy EVs instead of ICEs today. That would be a viable alternative. So they promote the red hering of hydrogen powered cars. After all the individual action of buying an EV instead of an ICE can easily be scaled, by making selling ICEs illegal.

27 would be born 1997, which is generally speaking old Gen Z. It generally starts with birth dates between 1995-97 or so.