Mullvad does not allow port forwarding.

They announced on May 29th that they would not allow new port forwarding. On July 1st, all existing port forwarding was disabled. Since then, Mullvad no longer allows port forwarding.

So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.

If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they're just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they're feeling fancy, or using old footage if they're not, and propagating that?

Moreover, just because you don't like what a journalist is reporting, you can't condone killing journalists.

Are you also saying it'd be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they're just saving the lives of "Russian war criminals"? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we're fighting? The logic you're using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.

Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.

If a condition is worsening (a "fall") "tumble" applies just fine. Indeed, "tumble" is just a way to say "falling rapidly" in this context.

The reason "tumble" (and its notion of "fall") is applicable is because the situation is worsening. If it was rapidly improving, nobody would say "tumble"; it's not simply that it is occurring rapidly.

Can you provide sources for this?

The source is that Russia murders its own oligarchs the second they fall out of Putin’s favor, and ships anyone who holds up a blank sign in protest of the regime gets shipped off to the front lines. No way that man would survive a second if he ever went against the party line. Which means he hasn’t done so.

A simple no would have been sufficient. I'm not interested in baseless speculation. I had hoped you had actual evidence, which would intrigue me greatly. As it is, I have someone's imagination put to paper.

If I were him, I’d get on the next plane to the US and happily spend the rest of my life in Leavenworth rather than allow myself to become a propaganda tool for a bunch of genocidal fascists.

He's not saying anything. He's not being a propaganda tool. You can make a rather weasily attempt to say his not denouncing something is in essence supporting it and thus being a propaganda tool, but that's a stretch and rather disingenuous.

No offense but you sound blue-eyed and idealistic when history has shown this to be a typical outcome.

Somehow Israel is a genocidal imperialist government driven by blood and soil nationalism, and it's supposed to get a pass for...handwavy reasons...

Liberalism in the USA is a right-wing ideology.

Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content.

This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don't go down, that doesn't make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.

People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it.

This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.

In fact, you're touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they've gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can't take peoples' acceptance of the situation at face value. If you've conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn't mean you aren't being abusive.

Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn't even the first time I've seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they'll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.

If you truly believe this drivel, you're doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.

You're right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!

No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.

Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it's not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn't been banned.