Well, no, not really. Western countries always get a huge backlash for any military activity in any region. This is where the propaganda and state controlled media opinion would be very useful, at least for the military.
Admitedly i dont consume much western media, but i fail to see how this is the case with Syria, Lybia and what have you. Again, if this is not stopping them, why this should worry Russia.
Russia's whole propaganda machine is predicated on having Ukraine as integral part of Russia since they base their whole value system on promoting the view that Russia is continuation of Kievan Rus which is modern day Ukraine.
Russia is also considers itself (for a quite some hundreds of years) a successor to Byzantine Empire. That does not mean that they want, would or should take any land in that direction.
Ukraine is special not because Kiev has to be in Russia, but because a lot of the current Ukrainian land was for, again, some hundreds years Russian and have almost no sovereign history. That makes it easy to play by all sorts of powers and Government is really not the main one there. Just look at Alaska it never gets same attention. Or North Kazakhstan. Same would be with Ukraine in coming 50-100 years if they would be able to hold the country together.
I dont watch news much. But that doesn't stops me from getting Ukraine from all sorts of angles for a long time (you have to justify Crimea).
I dont get much about NK from anyone but some ultra-right aligned personalities (but i am also getting stuff about Alaska from them, so there is that).
There is no independent ultra-right it's just another face of the same ruling group. The things they declare are coordinated by Kremlin. The "crazy" talk about Ukraine that started even prior to 2004 by "ultra-right" leaders was just 1st phase of prep. I would strongly caution against dismissing their msg. because they are voiced by ultra-right.
> There is no independent ultra-right it's just another face of the same ruling group.
Cant agree. Also this is a slippery slope that could apply to western countries as well and we dont want to go there.
> The "crazy" talk about Ukraine that started even prior to 2004 by "ultra-right" leaders was just 1st phase of prep.
Again, Ukraine problematic is objective. Alaska and NK is not. Not from todays Russia perspective, not from population perspective, not even from historical perspective. You didnt need ultra-right to talk about Ukraine and many legitimate politicians spoke about that for a long time. If anything moving towards Iran and eating up Caucasus nations is making much more sense than messing with NK, Baltics, Sweden or whoever else is trying to justify their actions using Russia as a threat.
It's not a slippery slope if people are given access to resources, time on state owned TV stations, and hold positions of power they are part of Kremlin there are no alternative sources of power or resources.
Your view of how government work or sources of resources and power in the country and dynamics between the two is not something i can agree with.
In any case there is nothing state can do to please you: censoring specific types from accessing media is bad (and rest assured you would never know if they are ultra-right, libertarians or whoever they are from western media), allowing them is endorsing.
Whats wrong with RT in general (besides funding) and this article in particular?
> It would be nice for Russia to have a swath from Crimea to Dontesk up through Latvia, just look at a map.
Why take this land? It does nothing strategically, has population that you need to subsidise, etc. Crimea allows Black Sea control. Kaliningrad effectively makes Baltic inner sea for Russia and if there ever would be any baltic action you would see that, not many (if any) ships would be able to enter.
When Russia occupied Crimea, Ukraine pulled out all support for the region's infrastructure. (Electricity, etc.) Quite naturally, Russia had to foot the bill to replace it.
The only way to get around that is to seize the entire country.
You cant just occupy country w/o sanctions, export/import chains breaking, you need to rebuild what would be inevitably destroyed during the invasion, etc.
The Baltics and Finland were both part of the Russian Empire; the Baltics were part of the USSR, and Stalin tried and failed to retake Finland. That's probably cause enough, if you're Putin.
> Even the smallest and most stable change can break backwards compatibility
This i care about.
> fix a bug or add a new feature
Not sure why i should care about these tho.
> essentially breaking existing integration
Not sure why you need 3 numbers to express that. Am i right in that your consumers dont get bugfixes by default because api patch version is changing? How is this working irl?
> suggestion of using a date is useless
Dates are just easier to scan by humans that just monotonically increasing numbers.
>> fix a bug or add a new feature
> Not sure why i should care about these tho.
I'm using feature X. Feature X was introduced in version X.Y. Therefore I can't use any version less than X.Y.
>> essentially breaking existing integration
> Not sure why you need 3 numbers to express that. Am i right in that your consumers dont get bugfixes by default because api patch version is changing? How is this working irl?
No. When you fix a bug you increment the patch version, unless the fix changes the API in which case you wouldn't want it automatically updated anyway.
> But it would work the same way with monotonically increasing version. no?
Kinda. If I can use 1.4 then I can use 1.7 but I can't necessarily use 2.1, because 1.7 only added things to 1.4 but 2.1 changed something about the public interface.
> I am just trying to understand how semver applies to REST in your case. Never seen anything but single number versioning for endpoints.
Sorry, I didn't realise we were talking about REST.
> If some-library's developer doesn't care about compatibility, then it doesn't matter what versioning scheme you use as you will have to whip up that secret sauce anyways.
It does. Semver implies semantics arbitrary versioning is not.
Ember has default model() hook for routes, and propose to add extra data fetching you need in children components into afterModel hook.
Everything is working just like you would set it up with React, except that with Ember declaring data dependencies on route is existing convention. And React gives you maybe a little bit more control around that.
> declaring data dependencies on route is existing convention
That makes sense, I believe that's exactly what react-async does (if I recall correctly?) with react-router.
For our project, we basically call "await ApiActions.getData(routeParams)" in the server's route, after pulling that params out, which is effectively the same idea, and it worked quite well. I'm curious how one would tackle that from a different perspective, but it seems we all end up coming to the same conclusion!
> There is a huge gulf between "synchronously render a component in Node" and "asynchronously boot an app, marshall async data, render an async UI, and do it concurrently."
I dont think it is fair to say it that way. React implementation doing all this (except async/streaming rendering) is man-week at worst in existing medium sized project, and man-day for a new project with no pre-existing code.
Twitch is fairly-conforming to IRCv3... they don't prefix their non-standard capabilities with their domain in CAP LS. :>
I'm sad because I applied to Twitch directly stating what I'd want to work on with the IRC portal and never got a response. My entire work history is IRC. XD
Not to follow along with propaganda, but how much of an independent history Ukraine have in these new borders in last 1000 years? Specifically around Crimea and so called People's Republics.
Ironically Western counties are very good at it.