Ice is more dense than oil, so it sinks to the bottom of the fryer. There it turns into liquid water anathema immediately into steam. This steam needs at least 1000 times more space than the ice cube (1700 times more than water under normal pressure) and blows all the oil out of the fryer. I would expect quite a fountain. In a science fair experiment 10ml of water in a cup of hot oil gave a considerable fireball and a splash zone of about 1.5m. Dropping in a piece of dry ice (solid carbon dioxide) just made a little bit of a fizzle.

If you used pandoc hen you were programming your thesis. ;-)

It depends on what you want to achieve.

Vi and it’s descendants are brilliant editors for a programmer but not for writing prose. So stay away from them. ;-)

Do you want just to write text without being distracted by an overwhelming gui or are you fine with the hint at options?

Do you want to write in a terminal?

How much do you want to format while typing? By typing the format commands into the text or by clicking on buttons or ctrl-key magic?

Do you need version control?

For each of your combination of answers there are different solutions.

Poland would have under PiS, but not anymore. Unless Slovakia steps up, who would? All others see Orban as a criminal, who siphons money off and ruins his country.

How much precision do you want to achieve?

The official denazification ended in both parts of Germany before 1950. All the Nazis were needed. It was not talked about what individuals had done before 45.

In the GDR it was by definition that all the Nazis had gone to the FRG. Prosecution came to a standstill. Nothing like the Zentralstelle in Ludwigsburg existed.

The silence about the time ended in the FRG with the Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt and the student movement from the mid 60ies onwards. Willy Brandt on his knees in Warsaw kicked off some hearty discussions. Later there was the Holocaust TV series with a heavy impact.

And this is the real denazification of the population. The discourse about personal responsibility for historical events changed the society. I had such Nazi teachers in the 70ies, but they got challenged by younger teachers and older pupils. My music teacher went into early retirement after he was challenged for his current and past behaviour.

This has reached about 2/3 of the population in the west. The rest is still authoritarian and votes for AFD and CDU. In the east authoritarianism is still wide spread, because challenging authority was not a good idea under SED rule. And after the Wende it was all sugar coated by Kohl.

The problem will sadly grow, I fear. Because people who are not happy with the political climate can move away. And they do it, just got a new neighbour from Chemnitz.

I beg to differ. It stopped shortly after the war in east and west. But the west had 1968 and in the GDR the older generation was never asked what they did in the war. All the nazis had gone to the west by definition.

For example:

https://www.mdr.de/geschichte/ddr/politik-gesellschaft/entnazifizierung-nazis-in-der-ddr-100.html

That is one point, but I thought of the rescue guys who have to go into the wall to pick up the body. Can be in a very unsafe place. Or the other drivers on the road in the case of driving a motorcycle at the limit.

I can understand the joy of bringing your body to go to the boundary and a bit beyond. For me it end far before tackling a cliff. More like balancing over a beam across a creek. But I can’t understand how one can take the risk of your own death or the harm of others.

Which invasion?

Your source is about a judgement about the involvement of Milosevic in the war crimes in Bosnia. In case you don’t know, there is a difference between Bosnia and Kosovo.

There was no NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. There was a very controversial aerial intervention by NATO after ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops in Kosovo. But that is not an invasion. After that there was a UN peace keeping campaign and administration.

Ad hominem? Not really. I contest his neutrality. It’s a partisan publication.

You wrote about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO invasion. What has KFOR to do with that?

You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?

And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?

So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn’t, btw. )

Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.

Even when this was true - this would have been a inner Ukrainian affair.

Is this in your eyes a justification for breaking the Budapest Memorandum and invading another country?

You are again diverting and misleading.

I wrote:

Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.

Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?

My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.

That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.

That is how it works. He has no political weight, he was a trophy ambassador. And your Mearsheimer and Chomsky are, let’s say, “controversly” discussed.

… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.

Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.

Interesting statement of fact. Let’s check it.

• Joe Biden: Lawyer, in politics since the age of 27
• Kamela Harris: in public service and politics directly after law school
• Ron DeSantis: Law school, millitary, poltician
• Ursula von der Leyen: LSE, housewife, politician
• Charles Michel: Member of parliament at age 23
• Olaf Scholz: Lawyer, in national politics since 1998
• Justin Trudeau: Son ;-) , teacher, non profit, politician
• Emmanuel Macron: public servant, banker (5 years), public service and politician
• Anthony Albanese: politics after uni
• Giorgia Meloni; politics after uni

A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.

My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.

It’s a proxy war by NATO against Russia, and yes this war is costing Russia lives. However, it’s becoming clear that this war is starting to cost the west quite a bit as well. The economy in Europe is suffering quite a bit right now, and the cost of living continues to climb which is leading to a lot of political unrest.

It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.

But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.

Russia tried Ukraine and the west to respect the Minsk agreements for nearly a decade. Now western leaders openly admit that they never intended to, and this was all a ploy to arm Ukraine for the coming conflict.

Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.

Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.

… who was an ambassador for 1 1/2 years and had no political functions before and after. He is a real estate guy, film producer and horse race aficionado. So no real source.

A proxy war by definition has both parties non active and letting others fight for them. So this is no proxy war from the Russian side, they are bleeding heavily. NATO on the other side is perhaps not very upset that Ukrainian blood stops the expansionist dreams of Russia with NATO gear. But I think most of them would have preferred if Russia had respected the Budapest Memorandum.