In no world is providing medical assistance to a victim accepting the exploiting behavior of the perpetrator.

Framing providing medical aid to a victim as "assisting the gunmen" to make a point is sick.

If you were a doctor in a warzone, and someone with a gun brought you their victim they just raped/abused, would you turn that patient away? What specific actions would you take in that moment?

The latest generations of gnss receivers have spoofing and jamming mitigation and detection features included with the chip, and multi-band rx technology to sync to more constellations simultaneously and do exactly what you're talking about. Before then, the spoofing/jamming detection would likely need a software implementation after the receiver. There are different types of spoofing/jamming, all of which are detected and mitigated in different ways.

I don't know the commercial aircraft industry standards for updating technology, but I wouldn't be surprised if most commercial aircraft don't have what you're talking about.

It means for the first 20 years they spent all of their profit on expansion / R&D

I just looked at the GitHub repo for that project. Are there any tutorials or anything out there for it that make the setup easy?

Also, do you believe that a suspect needs to shoot first before being considered a threat by police? I would say "armed and brandishing" would make the individual a legitimate threat.

I think it's relevant because it's evidence the teen was not a threat. I don't think it's implying an armed individual would automatically be a threat.

There are articles that do draw that false equivalence, and they deserve being called out. I don't think this is one of them.

Did you also get paid for the time you spent traveling?

Yes, you can code in machine code. I did it as part of my CS Degree. In our textbook was the manual for the particular ARM processor we coded for, that had every processor-specific command. We did that for a few of the early projects in the course, then moved onto Assembly, then C.

Of course, whenever a war is going on, a large amount of skepticism is always directed at the people calling for peace. In the words of the Nazi politician Hermann Göring:

...

Or I guess you'll dismiss that is "whataboutism" as well, since you evidentially you don't think it's valid to learn anything from historical events.

This sort of unreasonable dismissal of historical lessons, combined with accusations,

I have told you exactly my motivations for calling you out. I have asked clarifying questions because it is clear there is a misunderstanding between us.

None of my motivations, which I have been completely transparent about, were any of the wild jumps you just made. I'm not even going to justify any of them with a direct response. Putting words in my mouth is not intelligent discourse. Saying you're on the side of intellectualism doesn't make it true. Only if you don't put everyone who disagrees with you into the same box is it true. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an authoritarian. Do better.

I don't know which specific statements you're referring to, but no, I don't agree with painting anyone as subhuman.

Good! And thanks for answering the questions and responding to my statements directly. It's a breath of fresh air.

the post is unclear as to what constitutes Kremlin propaganda

From the post:

Kremlin propaganda has no place on lemm.ee. Any dehumanizing talking points of the Kremlin on lemm.ee are treated as any other bigotry, and if communist symbolism is used in context of Kremlin propaganda (that is the context in which I have been exposed to it throughout my whole life), then it will still be removed. But there is no blanket ban on communist symbolism in general on lemm.ee, and discussing and advocating for leftist and communist topics (as distinct from the imperialist and dehumanizing policies of the Kremlin) is certainly allowed on lemm.ee.

I don't see what's unclear about that paragraph. My summary/interpretation of it is: it starts with the blanket term of "Kremlin Propaganda", but then goes on to define what OP considers to be Kremlin propaganda and why it is considered to be rule-breaking. Bigotry in dehumanizing Kremlin talking points is treated like other bigotry. Do you think this interpretation is inaccurate?

Explaining my motivations for seeking out information from multiple sources is not whataboutism.

I am confused, what specific claims is the OP making that you want to validate / invalidate with other sources? Are you referring specifically to the claim that the Kremlin is I think not being sure of this is why I interpreted your comment the way I did.

I consider your accusation of whataboutism to be anti-intellectual.

My accusation of whataboutism comes from skepticism, which I do not think was misplaced. I saw your first comment as a veiled attempt at detracting/distracting from specifically the dehumanizing statements of the Kremlin.

...I agree with removing false information, but I'm of the belief that it's important to understand the positions and perspective of every nation, especially those considered enemies, for the sake of peace.

I see what you're getting at with this paragraph and statement, but in the context of the original post I have to call it out and ask further questions.

First, is there any context I'm missing? The examples of Kremlin propaganda provided by OP seem pretty straightforward to me. Russia is attempting to paint outside groups as subhuman. Are you attempting to be an apologist for those statements, or are there posts/comments that were painted in too broad of a stroke as Kremlin propaganda?

Second, I am calling out the whataboutism in your post. Under the rules outlined for lemme.ee, and in this post, there is nothing that points to support of Western imperialism, support of nationalism for any other country, or bias against Muslims. I don't see what the point is of bringing any of that up except to distract and attempt to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand.

Women traditionally have been discouraged from competitions, including chess. Men have a generational head start. We are at the stage where, in order to be equitable and fair, we should be creating extra opportunities for women. If we didn't, tradition and systemic practices would continue to discourage women.

Chess has no male category. There's open, and female. This allows an extra space for women to compete against each other, feel safe, and make connections and friendships with other women in the minority. While still allowing them to compete in the coed category on a level playing field.

We will most likely continue to be at this stage for generations.

I'm going to assume you aren't trolling.

Women traditionally have been discouraged from competitions, including chess. We are at the stage where we should be creating extra opportunities for women to be involved in these competitions. If we didn't, tradition and systemic practices would continue to discourage women.

Chess has no male category. There's co-ed, and female. This allows an extra space for women to compete against each other, feel safe, and make connections and friendships with other women in the minority. While still allowing them to compete in the coed category on a level playing field.

We will most likely continue to be at this stage for generations.