Once I went to Domino’s Pizza with my friend and she told me to give order. I had 4 notes of Rs. 500 each and I thought bill would be less than Rs. 500. So I ordered and the bill was Rs. 510/-. As I had only Rs. 500 notes, I gave them one note and said wait I will give you remaining balance.

I told my friend that bill was Rs. 510 and I paid Rs. 500 and balance is Rs. 10. So can you give me Rs. 10 note which you got from Auto change as I am not going to give another Rs. 500 note for the sake of Rs. 10.

She looked at me like I did some murder like thing and said following to me in Marathi in high pitch in front of whole store.

“Kutrya, tu evdhe paise gheun firtos aani tuzyakade ek Rs. 10 chi note nahi? Kon samajtos tu svatala? Evdha bhikari nako hous mazyasamor.”

English: You dog you roam with this much money and you don’t have simple Rs. 10 note? What you think of yourself huh? Don’t act like a beggar in front of me.

Whole store and customers eyes were glued at me. I felt that so humiliating and I cancelled the order, took the money and gave her sharp look and went out. Caught auto for my home.

PS: We were best friends once and after this incident she blocked me everywhere. Now we aren’t in touch and no need to get in touch! Because girls like her are definitely not from this planet! Better date another girl who is from this planet and can behave neatly in public places. 🙂

Man I can’t forget that day so easily.

The problem with Napoleon as a general was not that he lost “so many battles.” Of the 60 battles in which he was involved from Toulon to Waterloo—an astonishing 22-year period—he lost only seven.

The problem was that all seven of those lost battles were the most important ones.

His first defeat, at Acre in 1799, extinguished in the blink of an eye the fire of Napoleon’s ambition for imperial glory in the Near East at the expense of Ottoman and British power.

His second, at Aspern-Essling in 1809, saw Napoleon soundly bested on a European battlefield for the first time in a long career abundant in resounding triumphs, inflicting in turn a serious blow to the myth of Bonaparte’s invincibility as a military leader.

His third, at Leipzig in 1813, marked the long-awaited culmination of many trials and errors by the anti-Bonapartist powers of Europe in bringing the Emperor to battle on their terms. Despite the early successes of the German Campaign, Napoleon’s Grande Armée was simply overwhelmed and all but destroyed by the combined might of the Sixth Coalition, forced into full retreat from Germany to which it would never return.

His fourth, fifth, and sixth, at La Rothiere, Laon, and Arcis in 1814, all took place amid Napoleon’s final campaign before his first abdication, when the Sixth Coalition, having retaken Germany after victory at Leipzig, was now on the soil of France itself—a first for any European army since the early days of the Revolution. Though relatively unknown battles in the vast pantheon of Napoleonic lore, all three played significantly in the then inevitable unfolding of the Emperor’s downfall.

And then, of course, there’s Waterloo in 1815—the one battle of Napoleon’s entire story that needs no introduction. The battle that settled it all for Europe and the world beyond. A warrior-statesman definitively beaten, overthrown, and exiled. An entire country subjected for several decades to a pariah status among the European family of nations and, despite the restoration of the monarchy, a turbulent, near-constant existence of popular revolution and counterrevolution. One empire (France’s) dismantled beyond recognition or repair and another (Britain’s) elevated to heights previously unimagined.

Few days back, I ran into this situation. I had some important work and wasn’t having my laptop so I asked my friend Ayan Shrivastava to unlock his system. He uttered his password without any hesitation. That was quite a shock because people don’t do that often!!

I tried the password 2–3 times but it didn’t work. I asked him to spell it again. He did it without having second thoughts, but still it didn’t get unlock.

What was wrong with the password? Was I typing it wrong? Or my friend was bluffing me all this time?

Well unfolding the truth, the password was absolutely correct and so was my typing. The heck was just in default keyboard language layout of windows. By default, he had changed it to Hindi instead of English. If anyone types the password, it gets recognized in Hindi Language instead of English.

In order to login successfully, one have to change just the input language shown in the images and bang! You are in!

Takeaway:

1. This trick is useful in hostels where you don’t want anyone to check your laptop even when they know your password or by chance came to know.
2. Try noticing things that most people fail to! 😛

Thanks!

Xi holds restrictive meeting with Putin at Zhongnanhai

Chinese President Xi Jinping held a restrictive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday at Zhongnanhai in Beijing, during which they had in-depth exchanges on strategic issues of common concern.

The world is undergoing changes unseen in a century and entering a new period of turbulence and transformation, Xi noted, adding that in the face of the ever-evolving world landscape with volatility and turmoil, China has maintained its strategic resolve.

He said that under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people have overcome various difficulties and challenges, and are striving to promote high-quality development and Chinese modernization.

China is willing to work with Russia and other countries to enhance solidarity and cooperation, steer global governance in the right direction, jointly safeguard international fairness and justice, and promote world peace and common development, Xi said.

Noting that China’s development is unstoppable and that no force can contain China’s growth and progress, Putin said that Russia is willing to improve cooperation with China and other Global South countries to promote international fairness and justice, and to work toward a more equal and multipolar world.

The two heads of state had an in-depth exchange of views on the Ukraine crisis.

Xi elaborated on China’s consistent position and efforts to promote the political settlement of the Ukraine issue, stressing that to deal with any major issue, it is necessary to address both the symptoms and the root causes, and to plan for the present as well as for the long term.

He said the core of the Global Security Initiative is advocating the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, and the fundamental solution to the Ukraine issue is to promote the establishment of a new balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture.

Xi said China supports the convening of an international peace conference recognized by Russia and Ukraine at an appropriate time with equal participation and fair discussion of all options, so as to push for an early political settlement of the Ukraine issue, and China stands ready to continue to play a constructive role in this regard.

Putin introduced the relevant views and positions of Russia, saying that Russia appreciates China’s objective, just and balanced position on the Ukraine issue and welcomes China to continue to play an important and constructive role in the political settlement of the issue. Russia is committed to resolving the Ukraine issue through political negotiations and is willing to demonstrate sincerity and maintain close communication with China in this regard, he said.

Xi said that over the years, they have had many meetings and every exchange has been candid, in-depth and fruitful.

“I am ready to stay in close contact with President Putin and work together to steer the development of China-Russia relations in the right direction, guide the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era to achieve steady and lasting progress, bring more benefits to the two peoples, and contribute to world security and stability,” Xi said.

Putin thanked Xi for his warm hospitality, saying that he is willing to maintain close communication with Xi, implement the important consensus reached between them, and ensure the full development of the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era.

Poke the Bear and Find Out

Here’s why the West should finally listen to Russia’s warnings

Tarik Cyril Amar

May 11, 2024

We have been through an intense, if muffled crisis in the ongoing political-military confrontation between Russia and the West by way of Ukraine. The essence of this crisis is simple: Kiev and its Western supporters have lost the initiative in the Ukraine proxy war and may be on the verge of defeat, as high Western officials increasingly admit.

In response to this self-inflicted quandary, several important Western players have threatened further escalation. Most prominently, Great Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron publicly encouraged Kiev to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike inside Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron continued to threaten a direct – not covert, as at present – intervention by French, that is, NATO, troops (In addition, an intriguing and much-discussed article reported that a deployment of 1,500 troops from France’s Foreign Legion had already begun. While its sources were hard to assess, its claims appeared too plausible for easy dismissal.)

Moscow, in return, issued a set of stark warnings, laying down – or highlighting – red lines. It announced drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Belarus did the same; in Minsk’s case, the weapons in question are, of course, also Russian. In addition, the British and French ambassadors received extremely straight talk about the risks their respective governments were running.

Addressing London, Moscow made clear that Kiev striking inside Russia with British missiles would expose Britain to “catastrophic consequences,” in particular, Russian retaliation against British forces anywhere. Regarding France, Moscow blasted its “belligerent” and “provocative” conduct and defied as futile French attempts to produce “strategic ambiguity.”

For now, this particular crisis seems to have abated. There are some signs that the West got the message. NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, has insisted that NATO is not planning to send troops – openly, that is – into Ukraine.

Yet it would be wrong to feel too reassured. For this crisis was, at its core, a clash between, on one side, a Western problem that has by no means gone away and, on the other side, a persistent Russian policy that, it seems, all too many in the West refuse to take seriously enough.

The Western problem is that a defeat at Russia’s hands would be worse by orders of magnitude than the fiasco of the rout-like retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. Ironically, that is so because the West itself has charged its needless confrontation with Russia with the power to do unprecedented damage to NATO and the EU:

First, by insisting on treating Ukraine as a de facto almost-NATO-member, which means that by defeating it, Moscow will also defeat Washington’s key alliance. Second, by investing large and growing sums of money and quantities of supplies into this proxy war, which means that the West has weakened itself and, perhaps even more importantly, revealed its own weakness. Third, by trying to ruin both Russia’s economy and its international standing; the failure of both attempts has resulted in a stronger Russia across these two domains and, once again, revealed more limits of Western power. Fourth, by radically subordinating the EU to NATO and Washington, the geopolitical damage has been, as it were, leveraged.

In short, when the Ukraine crisis started in 2013/14 and then greatly escalated in 2022, Russia had vital security interests at stake; the West did not. By now, however, the West has made choices that have charged this conflict and its outcome with the capacity to do great, strategic harm to its own credibility, cohesion, and power: Overreach has consequences. That, briefly, is why the West is at an impasse and remains there after this crisis.

On the other side, we have that persistent policy of Moscow, namely its nuclear doctrine. Much Western commentary tends to overlook or downplay this factor, caricaturing Russia’s repeated warnings about nuclear weapons as “saber-rattling.” Yet, in reality, these warnings are consistent expressions of a policy that has been developed since the early 2000s, that is, for almost a quarter-century.

A key feature of this doctrine is that Russia explicitly retains the option of using nuclear weapons at a relatively early stage in a major conflict and before an adversary has had recourse to them. Many Western analysts have described the purpose of this posture as facilitating a strategy of “escalating to deescalate” (sometimes abbreviated as E2DE), here meaning specifically to end a conventional conflict on favorable terms through a limited use of nuclear weapons to deter the adversary from continuing.

The term “escalate to de-escalate” emerged in the West, not Russia, and this Western interpretation of Russian policy has played an important role in Western politics and debates and, thus, has its critics as well. In addition – but this is a separate question – some analysts point out that the idea of E2DE is less of any country’s national property than something inherent in the logic of nuclear strategy, that other nuclear powers have had similar policies, and that the whole idea, whoever adopts it, may not work.

In addition, Russia’s nuclear doctrine is, as you would expect, complex. And, while France’s President Emmanuel Macron has made a habit of strutting a constant inconstancy he calls “strategic ambiguity,” Moscow is capable of inflicting some genuine calculated uncertainty on its adversaries, with less bragging but more effectively. Thus, one side of its nuclear doctrine stresses that nuclear weapons could only be used if the existence of the Russian state was in danger, as has just been underlined again by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. But to misunderstand this as a promise that Moscow would only use nukes if Moscow were under siege and half of Russia’s territory or population gone already, would be foolish.

In reality, there also is room in its nuclear doctrine for treating the “unconditional territorial integrity and sovereignty” of Russia as critical thresholds. How do we know? From multiple Russian documents, which need not be cited here because Ryabkov has reminded us of this facet of Moscow’s policy, too. In the same statement in which he emphasized the criterion of “state existence.” Take that, Emmanuel.

A final point, it seems, needs highlighting as well: Russia has never restricted its option of using nuclear weapons, indeed any type of weapons, to the area of a specific local conflict, for instance, Ukraine. The opposite is the case. Moscow is explicitly reserving the right to strike beyond the confines of such a battlefield. That is something that President Vladimir Putin has made crystal clear in his address to Russia’s Federal Assembly in February of this year. It is exactly that message that Britain has received as well in the recent crisis.

Whichever way you parse it, official Russian nuclear doctrine has specific messages for potential adversaries. Moscow has consistently applied this doctrine throughout the Ukraine War and in its recent warnings – by drill and by diplomatic demarche – to its Western opponents.

But there is the rub: The West has a history of obstinately not hearing Russian messages. That is how we ended up in this war in the first place. Russia had warned the West repeatedly since, at the latest, President Vladimir Putin’s well-known speech at the Munich Security Conference in – wait for it – 2007. The last major warning came in late 2021, when Russia – with Sergey Ryabkov, incidentally, in the forefront – offered the West what turned out to be a last chance to abandon its unilateralism and specifically NATO expansion and, instead, negotiate a new security framework. The West brushed this offer off. With nuclear weapons in play, it is time that Western elites learn to, finally, listen when Russia sends a serious warning.

First published on RT.com, 10 May 2024

Why did the United States react so much to the news that China was going to land on the moon?

At the hearing of NASA in fiscal year 2024, Director Bill Nelson repeatedly mentioned the old story:

"We have to land on the moon as soon as possible, and we can't let China beat us to it!"

We have to admit that the cognition of people all over the world is far behind the times.

Trump ran for president in 2016. Before that, almost everyone was not optimistic about him. After being elected, ordinary people deeply felt the division and chaos under the glamorous appearance of the United States in recent years.

Before China hosted the Olympic Games in 2008, people all over the world (even politicians) generally thought that China was poor and backward. After the Olympic Games and the World Expo, the number of people holding this view has decreased greatly. Some countries began to regard China as a threat.

In a word, what a country needs is to use “big events” to reverse the cognition of ordinary people.

The launch of the 003 aircraft carrier, the service of the J-20 and the start of operation of the space station are all “big events” in the eyes of ordinary people, but these Americans have them. In the eyes of people in other countries, that is, “China and the United States are still far behind. After all, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers.”

“China Man Landing on the Moon” is also such a big event. It will cause “China people have done things that the United States can’t do now” to the people of all countries. Although the United States also landed on the moon in its early years, aren’t you unable to get on now?

In particular, there is a subtext of landing on the moon, “China people go on behalf of mankind.” “China is replacing the role played by the United States in space exploration (human civilization).”

This impression is extremely important. The impetus to China’s soft power and even its ability to sell goods is intangible and enormous.

Would you like to buy a mobile phone and a car in China? This is a product of a country that can land on the moon. This mobile phone is produced by the manufacturer who developed the communication equipment for landing on the moon, and this car is produced by the manufacturer who developed the lunar rover. Is it a loss to buy one?

Would you like to hear what the China government has said? This is the government of a country that can land on the moon. Oh, how does this government usually work? What did you say, what did you do, and what values did you uphold to send people to the moon? Let’s look at the fact that our government has not repaired the road at the door for 10 years. Which country’s people are not disgusted?

There is an interesting saying: when China said that he would go to the moon, Americans believed that China people would definitely go to the moon and make it.

Not only Americans believe it, but people all over the world believe it. Everyone is waiting for the China people to bring back evidence that the Americans landed on the moon or there was no evidence.