OpenBLAS Deciding Whether To Drop Support For Russia's Elbrus CPUs

[tuxd3v]

Russia sees NATO as a threat. Thus NATO is evil. Cannot argue against Putin logic.

see this.

[tuxd3v]

Uhuh, care to show it?

The only thing I am aware of it is German free to air TV revoking license for RT, but that only effects free to air TV and not internet.

You are wrong!
It affects RT, Sputnik on everywhere, internet included, and its not only in Germany, its in EU.

[tuxd3v]

Anyway, there are many countries which meet that definition! I can name several in Asia, not to mention Islamic countries. Do you have similar feelings towards them?

I feel the same about everybody.
For me everybody has the same rights, doesn't matter the country, the religion, the culture.
And I think everybody should try it, because it makes our world a better place.

[tuxd3v]

Not sure about that, given your proclivity to parrot Russian talking points.

I just say what I think, about something.
I have formulated a opinion before I peak, based on my own values.

[tuxd3v]

Those weren't bullets. Those were tank shells, at least. And they can't have known for sure which buildings were where, making it extremely dangerous to fire towards the complex. I'm sure there's no perfectly safe place to shoot a tank in that complex.

That is not true, and you know very well that nobody shot a tank there,
Its just that you can't see the reality, or at least you don't admit it..

Ho and by the way, Russians media even say that those gun shots came from the nazis side.
So in reality we don't even know who shot who..

Again, flares are not a safe thing to use, for fear of damaging equipment critical to keeping the radioactive cores cool. Failure to keep them cool would result in mass release of radioactive fallout, like Chernobyl.

That was a training Facility, it was very far away from the nuclear plant itself, and you know it!
In the night Sky, always that a shoot brakes out there need to be flares in the sky, if not , how does you know who you are shooting and where??
You just want to make a negative point towards one of the parts..
Its ok,
I understand very well the type of Journalism that you are consuming..

[tuxd3v]

A lot of countries in the region have a history with Ukraine and Russia. The US is concerned, because this is the first step towards World War III.

All hypocrisy,
If the US was concerned it wouldn't be destabilizing the region for the last 10 years or more..

[coder]

You are mentally ill. Take pills. Putin ended the war in Chechnya. The war in Chechnya began long before Putin came.

Wow, if that's evidence of the quality of Russian education, the young generation has a lot to worry about.

[coder]

Wow, a full-course meal!

during WWII, in their concentration camps etc. Nobody bombed them.

Turks performed the worst genocide in XX century, on Armenian people. Nobody bombed them.

You don't seem to understand that NATO action in former Yugoslavia was to try and stop genocide. As it wasn't intended as a punishment, therefore it would make no sense to launch attacks for prior offenses. If anyone is still around to answer for those, such cases would need to be litigated through something like the International Court of Justice.

Etc. My point: history is much more complicated in Europe, and other parts of the world, than US people are typically able to understand.

I think we understand your tit-for-tat multi-generational skirmishes just fine. However, ethnic cleansing isn't permitted by the United Nations Genocide Convention, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1951.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

In US, that's typically more than enough to completely forget your ethnic roots.

Apparently not, given how some people are clinging to Civil War identities from more than 1.5 centuries ago.

That goes on and on for decades, throughout both piece and wars. And then, at some point US comes, and says these are good boys, these are bad boys, this is democracy, this is tyranny. And bombs the shit out of the side they don't like,

First, what happened to Communist era Yugoslavia? Conveniently left out Tito, eh?

But you're also skipping over the whole UN involvement, which is an integral part. On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, it seems like it was really the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 civilians in 1995 that really ramped up NATO involvement, since that's what prompted the UN peace keepers to have the power to order NATO air strikes, directly. That later gave way to Operation Deliberate Force, which was the first mass bombing campaign. More, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_i...nd_Herzegovina

So, you can really trace the whole escalation to the Srebrenica massacre. If not for that, NATO likely would've stayed in a strict air-support role for the UN Peacekeepers.

Same thing goes for decades, on all sides of the world. Far East, Iraq, Afganistan, Libiya, you name it. Same black-and-white view of the world, enforcing US policies without taking any regard of the people that actually have to live under these policies, without any regards to the history of conflicts.

Huh? "Far East"?

I'll grant you that Iraq was a bad move, though we've already discussed that.

Another thing we've already discussed, at great length, is how Afghanistan was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which was being protected by the Taliban.

Libya, on the other hand, was actually getting involved in a domestic uprising against Gaddafi, and done at the behest of a UN Security Council resolution and in conjunction with virtually all of Libya's neighbors. Gaddafi was a dictator who had bombed a US airliner and antagonized other countries in the region. Nobody liked him and he was about to smash the uprising.

Involvement in Syria was not done through NATO, and was in response to ISIS. They had to go, and I think that's one of the few areas of agreement with Russia. ISIS had an explicit goal of launching attacks against the West and had the potential to engulf the region.

Of course, such "solutions" can't work. There is no place that is better after US intervention.

I'd probably point to Syria as the best recent success. That conflict was already raging, by the time the US got involved, and ISIS was smashed and deprived of all the land it had gained, by the time the US pulled out.

On top of all that, there is hypocrisy that US has so much internal problems to fix before starting to patronize other. You are a society sunked in racism.

Ah, and here's the famous whataboutism.

So, we can't try to stop genocide somewhere else, until we completely fix racism? Or oppose Russian military conquests while blacks are still lower on the economic ladder?

Not only is that illogical, it's also unreasonable. The world is a big, complex place. Nowhere is perfect, but we have to hold our aspirations high and catch each other when we stumble.

Think about it like this: a person with high ambitions will encounter some failures and short-comings, but ultimately achieve more than the person with low ambitions. If you're too concerned about ever falling short of your goals, then you won't try as hard. So, the idea is to have high standards, even if we haven't always met them.

there is a large liberal elite, that you individually may be part of, that is condemning it. In Serbia throughout war of 90-ies, all of the intelectual elite was against Milosevic, but majority of ordinary people was for him and is in principle, through this support, indeed responsible for war crimes commited by his regime. Same for US today: majority of you are racists, otherwise this issue would be put behind long ago.

That's a poor analogy, for the following reason. Milosevic was committing his crime while he had this popular support. On the other hand, the theory of Systemic or Structural Racism tells us there are institutions that were built by previous generations that keep blacks and certain other racial minorities at a disadvantage. It takes time to dismantle those structures, and then more time to repair the damage they've done. Whereas if a leader goes out and slaughters 8000 civilians tomorrow, the people supporting him had contributed to that specific event, even if indirectly.

In a way, it's a bit like the difference between a sin of commission vs. a sin of omission.

You dare to speak about Soviet regime doing this or that, while for example at the same time, 50 or so years ago, you had laws in some states forbidding marriages between white and "colored" people. That is disgusting.

You dare to speak about racism while defending ethnic conflict? That is disgusting.

Not to mention how absurd it is that you have to go back 50 years to find those laws and yet you criticize as if they're still in effect today.

So this is why all of this hysteria in the West abput Ukraine is also disgusting.

No, you're just butt-hurt about getting bombed for allying yourselves with the murderous Serbs, like 30 years ago. You even said you like to hold multi-generational grudges. So, I guess that explains it then.

Putin is a maniac, but he's doing just what he learned from number of US presidents in the recent history. He plant lies, attacks an innocent country, bomb civilians.

He's an ex-KGB officer. He's the master of lies and disinformation.

Also, the US always tries to minimize civilian casualties. And it doesn't seek territorial expansion. So, those are two fundamental ways in which his conflict differs from any of the modern conflicts in which the US has been involved.

So you will talk and talk,

Talking is usually better than not talking. Nobody can make Putin agree to any realistic alternative, but we have to at least try.

and push poor Ukrainians to fight to the last one of them,

No, they're fighting because they want to. They could also surrender, if they wanted. It's entirely up to them.

but you won't dare to do anything else for them except for sending them money and weapons.

Yes, because a shooting-war with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep, would likely escalate very fast. You don't really want WWIII, do you? You probably wouldn't like it, if it happened.

Well, about the only takeaway I got from this long rant is that you're still nursing a grudge from 30 years ago. Good luck with that.

[coder]

Typical EU & US Citizens (not all but AFAIK, quite a bunch of them): US and EU is Just! NATO is Just! Everything they do is Just!

Nobody said that.

Everything beside them is evil! China is Evil! Russia is evil! North Korea is evil! Ethiopia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.. what's that? Eww. Didn't care, and don't care.

Nobody said that, either. We focus on Russia's actions. Are you defending its invasion of Ukraine?

You start a war? What factions are you? China? Russia? NK? Middle East? Then you're evil! But if you're US / EU / NATO, you are absolutely, ultimately just!

I'm just trying to look at facts, here. People can have their own opinions, based on the facts, but not their own facts.

It's kind of like NAZI -> They think that they're the superior race. What they did, do, done is just. Never wrong.

...and, again with the Nazi's.

[coder]

EU/US, while they do matter, Russia can do well without them.

Not if the EU stops buying Russian fuel. I don't believe that'll happen, but it'd be terrible for Russia, if it did.