It was working for everyone in navigation, where angles mattered. Which is why it became the most used map.
It was phased out in favour of maps showing area more correctly, because navigation w. maps became less important, not because “it didn’t work”.
Btw this feature is exactly why certain companies are also banning Revolut cards; turns out authorizes for payments on a card that is about to disappear is a great way to not have to pay for anything (the Dutch OVPay had fraud issues with these cards for example).
There’s a handful of people out there cracking Denuvo games.
No, his lip looks larger in the right but it’s actually his gums showing behind.
This image appears to he real.
Maps were used for navigation, which meant angles needed to be preserved. Christian nations colonised a lot, meaning they needed to have maps for navigation a lot too.
This isn’t some weird propaganda campaign, that makes no sense. Try making an angle-preserving map that doesn’t wildly distort the north and south of the world.
Besides, not sure how Christian the icy wastes of Greenland and Antarctica are.
MTC data has different numbers: https://reports.mysidewalk.com/3374a0ca74
Regardless, adding a lane won’t work. The bottleneck is the 101, so you just get extra lanes to stand still in. And the toll gate as well.
The lane was already there btw, but it was an emergency pullover lane. It didn’t cost a lot of carbon to turn it into a bike lane.
The issue is mostly energy costs though. Startups do lose money; to hiring new people, marketing, etc… But in this case the entire business case loses money a the moment, and without any significant breakthroughs they likely will keep losing money like that.
I’m not really sure what the snark is for, I’m asking you a genuine question because you seem to be genuinely engaging and doing actual research.
You listed a number of sources but I didn’t quite get what exactly you were replying, so that’s why I asked for a clarification. It’s a genuine attempt at conversation :(
Nice dig! I found a Russian source which says the same: https://hrono.ru/sobyt/1900war/1939pol.php
So to clarify here, this is indeed used for navigation. At the time no GPS existed of course, so pilots had to rely on either radio signals or visual clues on the ground to tell them where they are. The radio signals, if the pilot could tell where they were coming from, would indeed help triangulate their location. Quite necessary, particularly in eastern Poland where German radio signals had a harder time reaching.
If the radio tower continually transmitted the requested callsign in between the other stuff, it would be easy to tell where the radio tower was. The Germans at this point expected the Soviets to help invade already as they had agreed upon. By mentioning “Minsk” a lot in the transmissions they effectively did the same thing, but a bit less overt. This allowed the Soviets to retain some element of surprise against the Poles.
On the 10th of September, the Nazis urged Molotov to begin the Soviet side of the invasion to uphold their end of the agreement, but Molotov held off due to the war with Japan. This gave them a convenient reason to wait until Polish resistance had been broken before going in. One week later, war was declared and the Soviets invaded.
I’m a bit confused as to what you’re trying to say here. You seem to be supporting my point that in 39, the communists were primarily anti-imperialist, which by 41 had pivoted back to being primarily anti-reich. They obviously didn’t like the reich in that time, that would be ridiculous. But they did in some ways echo some of the pro-German propaganda (eg blaming London for the war).
Your first source also confirms what I’m saying about the confusion caused by the war and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. The assumption was that the imperialist west would ally with the Nazis and that the Soviets would be fighting the fascists. Yet in a span of 2-3 weeks, the reality was that the Nazis had allied with the Soviets and that the imperialists were fighting the fascists instead. Hence the mentioned confusion and the lack of heterogeneity in the response; various reasons were invented to support the Soviets in this new arrangement (quite interestingly a fair few of those I’ve seen mentioned here actually, e.g. the “protecting the Poles” line, but at the time it was also argued by some that the USSR had a right to take back those lands from Poland. Though none of them seemed to deny an invasion had taken place altogether like some here are suggesting).
the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐[Reich] position than their comrades elsewhere.
Yeah this was my point. It took a bit for various communist groups to pivot back to being primarily anti-reich. Those who suffered directly under the Nazis turned faster, e.g. those in northern France took the anti-reich position before the British communists did (they remained more anti-imperialist aimed at the UK, until the Soviets were invaded).
The comment you linked did not address the direct military collaboration, e.g. the Luftwaffe being coordinated from Minsk. So please, do spell it out. You can’t, because you never did address it.
I did address those.
Please cite this directly because I’m not reading it in your replies.
you’re trying to invent a narrative where the Soviets, for a very short period, were actually super pro-Nazi and totally fine with them
Here’s the thing: this is exactly what the communist parties outside Russia also struggled with. Stalin made a deal with Hitler. Molotov literally said “Fascism? Fascism is purely a matter of taste”.
For the first two weeks of the war, the communist parties felt conflicted but ultimately didn’t need to change their stance. They were anti-fascist after all, and the UK and France had now declared war on the Nazis so this received the CPs support. Maurice Thorez even joined the French army (for a couple weeks until he left to go to Moscow).
But then, Stalin invaded Poland, and they met the Nazis as allies in the middle. Stalin publicly came out in support of Hitler’s “peace programme”. This caused some serious conflicts in the CPs in the west. Suddenly the logic shifted:
So surely, it was better to focus on being anti-imperialist, focused against the UK and France instead of focusing on Germany.
You’ll find many socialist and communist newspapers started putting out pro-German propaganda (and some were banned for it). This only changed after 41, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
The Soviets were never “totally fine” with the Nazis. But for a time they were happy to see the Nazis turned towards the west, and they saw the opportunity to get some benefits for themselves too.
Machine learning doesn’t necessarily require a centralized cluster. Usually running those kinds of models is pretty cheap, it’s not an LLM basically. They usually do better than human moderators as well, able to pick up on very minute ‘tells’ these cheats have.
I understand your point about edge cases, but that’s not something the average player cares about much. E-sports is a pretty niche part of any game, especially the higher ranks. You just want to filter out the hackers shooting everyone each game that truly ruin the enjoyment. Someone cheating to rank gold instead of silver or whatever isn’t ruining game experiences; they’re usually detectable too, but if you get a false negative on that it’s not the end of the world. A smurf account of a very highly ranked player probably has a bigger impact on players’ enjoyment.
Didn’t Microsoft stop this in a recent-ish update? I remember trying it on a machine without TPM and it just didn’t work.
Bazzite worked fine though (after some headaches setting it up).
These tricks may make it indistinguishable to a human moderator, but machine learning is actually really good at detecting that. But most companies don’t have the expertise, resources or training data to build a proper model for it.
You did not address the fact that the Soviets directly collaborated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk. You did not address the fact that the Soviets had already geared up for an invasion on the Polish border.
Don’t claim you did when anyone can read you didn’t.
You misrepresent the facts surrounding Brest. The article you referred to does these things to: omit the facts that don’t match your narrative. You ignore historical context and have now resorted to putting up a strawman regarding which country did most to stop the Nazis, which was never the point I challenged you on (the historical fact that the Soviets did indeed agree to divide Poland with the Nazis and collaborated on the invasion).
There’s no point in continuing this conversation if you keep failing to address these key points that directly undermine your narrative.
Explain to me why the Soviets agreed on a sphere of influence that went straight down the middle of a sovereign country. Explain to me why the Soviets coordinated militarily with the Luftwaffe during the invasion, even before the Soviets entered the war. You keep incessantly dodging these questions because the facts do not fit your false narrative.
The UK and France weren’t ready for war either. As already mentioned (which you also keep ignoring) the BEF wasn’t deployable before Poland fell, and France believed they weren’t able to attack and defeat Germany yet. Despite that, they declared war.
The Soviets could have unilaterally guaranteed the Poles. Such a guarantee, on top of the Allied one, could have deterred Hitler for longer. The Soviet army could at least have given the Poles a fighting chance. The Germans would have been less effective without the military assistance from the Soviets. Instead, they did prepare the Red Army for war; one against Poland.
The Germans weren’t ready for a two-front war yet. With no eastern front left, they were able to break through France and capitulate them. With the knowledge that the Germans would be fighting in Russia, France may have successfully invaded the Nazis.
My point is that your link claiming the Soviets didn’t agree to invade Poland with the Nazis is historical revisionism, blatantly ignores facts and context and just does not hold up under mild scrutiny. It’s literally what I stated in my first comment.
When the Soviets did not manage to get an alliance with the west (the west still deemed the communists a huge threat as well), they did genuinely attempt to ally with the Nazis. And that’s what initially happened. Stalin didn’t believe the alliance would last of course, but ultimately he too was surprised by how early Hitler invaded. Molotov even called fascism “a matter of taste”, to demonstrate the collaboration between the two nations at that point.
The “Phoney war” has always been a bit of a misnomer. Poland fell before the British expeditionary force could even be deployed. Later revealed French intelligence showed that France severly overestimated the German strength on the French border. They didn’t press hard yet because they believed they wouldn’t be able to.
But they UK and France didn’t declare war for performative reasons. They stepped in, even if not immediately effectively, whereas the Soviets initially collaborated with the Nazis and waited to be attacked instead. They too could have unilaterally guaranteed Poland, yet chose not too. They spied an opportunity for themselves to regain lands lost to Poland in an earlier war instead and took it.
A professionally well-maintained wiki would work.
I can tell you that most corporations, if they even have a wiki, don’t have a well-maintained one (often despite their efforts).