> Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law
The great powers (China, Russia and America) have each, at this point, explicitly rejected this principle. More broadly, internationa law does contain broad exemptions for piracy.
UNCLOS provides that “all states have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirate ships and aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board” [1].
> if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?
No, because the seizure was not “committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” [2]. Under UNCLOS states can’t be pirates.
(Again, this is academic. China has been blowing off UNCLOS judgements in the South China Sea for years.)
This seizure was absolutely legal under the UNCLOS, the US unquestionably has valid justification under international law to seize this (and any other) stateless vessel.
> How is that comparable? That seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments.
Can you explain how exactly that is supposed to be a comparable situation? It's pretty widely accepted that Edmundo González won the legitimately held elections in Venezuela
Maduro is a corrupt dictator who holds sham elections, but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government. Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?
If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.
> but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government
Hardly true at this point.
>Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?
Not sure why you're asking me this. I'm not proposing the US should seize Venezuelan freighters, I'm just saying they have a reasonable excuse if they choose to do so.
>If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.
Donald Trump probably wouldn't have, and perhaps many of his supporters :)
> Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments
Bullshit that might have worked if Russia didn't proceed to claim de facto sovereignty over the rest of Ukraine.
It's also precisely the same logic the U.S. is using. Maduro is illegitimate. The legitimate, elected goverment in exile wants Maduro toppled. Herego, this shit.
Surely we're all old enough to know that's an obvious lie. The US government probably doesn't know or care if Maduro is a dictator, they're just here for the oil.
US would get the oil regardless of who they back, there's nobody else with the technical capabilities to extract at scale in Venezuela. This is a completely ridiculous argument.
No it's not, the current regime is very open about how excited they are about getting that oil and very hand wavy about everything else.
It would be ridiculous to argue that the current regime has any genuine concerns or interest about democracy, drug trafficking (even just pardoned one), or the legitimacy of Venezuela's government.
I don't see how this reasoning would be at all applicable in that situation.
There are good reasons to believe that Edmundo González won the elections in Venezuela, there are no good reasons to believe anything similar about illegally occupied territories in Ukraine.
Check out how $100 put in bank deposits or S&P500 have done versus gold over the last 50 years. You will find that these do not generate real returns when measured against sound currency either.
I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. I did as you suggested. $100 invested 50 years ago into gold would be worth $3000 today. $100 invested into the S&P500 50 years ago would be worth $6870.
Countries like Denmark, Switzerland or Netherlands indeed offer very good quality of life but the language barrier is substantial. Tons of people know English as a second language and almost no one knows, say, Danish as a second language.
> Deal with your mess instead of extending it here.
This is exactly the justification for all the anti-immigration policies, the idea that immigrants from foreign countries have extended the mess that is in their home countries to the United States, and the only way to prevent it is to prevent those people from having the right to settle permanently in the United States.
And there is the fact that countries like Denmark are tightening up immigration even tighter than the US. The EU countries that tried a more open boarder quickly realized how it can spiral out of control.
I don't. I do remember when they were annulled after Russian interference and there were other fundamental issue with the first first round and Georgescu's campaign that broke the law.
Rust's foo: Option<&T> is rust's rough equivalent to C++'s const T* foo. The C++ *foo is equivalent to the rust unsafe{ *foo.unwrap_unchecked() }, or in safe code *foo.unwrap() (which changes the undefined behavior to a panic).
Rust's unwrap isn't the same as std::expected::value. The former panics - i.e. either aborts the program or unwinds depending on context and is generally not meant to be handled. The latter just throws an exception that is generally expected to be handled. Panics and exceptions use similar machinery (at least they can depending on compiler options) but they are not equivalent - for example nested panics in destructors always abort the program.
In code that isn't meant to crash `unwind` should be treated as a sign saying that "I'm promising that this will never happen", but just like in C++ where you promise that pointers you deference are valid and signed integers you add don't overflow making promises like that is a necessary part of productive programming.
For the sake of the argument, the topic here is running software on general computing devices, and most people don't put game consoles in that category. Also, according to my poor knowledge of game console history of past 30 years, game consoles never intend to run arbitrary software, unless you jailbreak the device which is obviously not allowed by ToS.
I find the article useful from a "how do C++20 coroutines work" perspective, but these sorts of tutorials don't really help you use coroutines in anything beyond a toy program.
I personally found coroutines are useful only in conjunction with a library wrapping OS system calls to interact with sockets (epoll/iouring on Linux, for instance), providing an event loop, and handles the complexity of multithreading. The most fleshed out one out there is probably boost asio.
reply