[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

Might be a significant issue if more applications adopt these kind of festures and can’t share the resources in a meaningful way.

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

Meant only the state of Russia. This is Russia’s own show, will stay as such.

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

Or the state organize it better

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Mielestäni nimenomaan asia jätetään hyvin tulkinnanvaraiseksi - en tätä seikkaan kylläkään edellisessä kommentissani osannut selkeästi ilmaista. Jos ei tiedä Petersonia tai Tatea, niin kirjoituksen perusteella ei varsinaisesti tartte huolestua heidän 'varaisyydestään'.

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Based on my and friends' experience, no idea what you are talking about ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's irrelevant since, as in the link:

Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include: ... Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Having an incendiary mechanism doesn't mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.

[-] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Did you read my link?

view more: ‹ prev next ›

pheet

joined 1 year ago