If you use a WM with multiple named workspaces/tags - it is nice to have a key binding to run a terminal with a startup script (instead of the default shell) that creates or attaches to a tmux session with same name as the currently active workspace.
You might be interested in Sideberry (1) - it has tab groups as an additional instrument of organizing tabs, and automatically creates daily snapshots of hierarchy of tabs.
No idea if following would be of use to you. Just thoughts based on my own experience.
If you do not have strong dependence - be aware of not liking side effects of alcohol, and disassociate good time with friends from consuming alcohol.
If you have bad memories about yourself being drunk - maybe idea of disliking yourself that is drunk would be of use (and being aware of that dislike at the moment when you decide if you are going to drink that first bottle of beer that evening or not.
If you are ok with just rarely drinking some small amount of alcohol - do not obsess/fixate on idea of not drinking ever.
It will likely be easier to not drink alcohol if this topic is not tangled with internal conflicts and bunch of feelings/emotions.
There were at least 16k detainments [^1] of anti-war protesters in Russia since the start of the invasion, most of them in the first month of the invasion if I remember correctly. Somewhere in the first 2 months it became more risky to protest the war - fines starting at 50k rubles (~1 median monthly salary) and the risk of criminal persecution increased (in addition a high risk of being fired from a job).
And Tree Tabs felt like a better Tree Style Tabs (but there were no bugfixes in past 4 years).
Though very rarely Sideberry looses/forgets the tree structure of tabs, and I have to restore it from one of the recent snapshots (which it creates every day automatically).
Well, if examined history starts in 1939, then agreement looks really bad.
If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.
Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).
Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).
Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
> Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:
From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:
> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"
Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.
His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
Oh, I've replied to a reply to your message.
I think what you've wrote is closer to my own perception than the reply to your message that I have replied to.
Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events.
And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.
I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right.
I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.
On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.
And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).
Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).
I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).
Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
His plan was for Greek government debt to be restructured (so it can be paid at some point in the future), for many reforms to be implemented and to reject "bailouts" and strict austerity that would only increase debt and decrease ability of Greek government to service the debt.
The plan for "parallel" currency of IoUs was made so that Greece could continue functioning in case European Central Bank forced banks in Greece to be closed.
> Anything that is not socialist is called ultra right.
Could it be that you have misunderstood this? He was talking specifically about ultra-right / far-right like "National Front"/"National Rally" in France and Vox in Spain. That economic crises benefit parties like that (And you can see that parties like that are/were on the rise in popularity after 2008 crisis in Europe).
