A reported Ukrainian drone strike Friday caused Moscow to shut down all four of its major airports, CNN reports.
“The drone was jammed and fell near the settlement of Putilkovo, which is near the Russian capital, causing no casualties or damage,” the Russian defense ministry said in a statement to CNN.
This development comes as Ukraine increases the frequency of drone attacks throughout Russia, according to CNN.
Ukrainian officials also claimed their Air Force claimed it had destroyed fifteen Russian-made drones and carried out ten group attacks, the outlet reports.
Meanwhile, Chernihiv — a city in northern Ukraine — is reeling from a Russian missile strike on a theater and university that has killed at least seven people and injured 90, CNN reports.
Among those killed was a six-year-old girl, and first responders have taken a twelve-year-old girl in “grave condition” to Kyiv for treatment, local officials told the outlet.
The original article contains 186 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 19%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Ukrainian officials also claimed their Air Force claimed it had destroyed fifteen Russian-made drones and carried out ten group attacks, the outlet reports.
That’s way too many qualifiers. I understand being cautious with your statements, but this is almost unreadable.
“You” doesn’t mean I’m talking to the bot, I’m using it as a general descriptor for a person. I could have said “I understand being cautious with one’s statements”, but that’s very formal and unnecessary in a comment on a social media website. I can easily imagine you reading a sentence like “You need to study really hard to get to Harvard” and think someone is talking to you personally instead of making a general statement.
Communication is a cooperative process, interpreting what others say maliciously and automatically assuming they made a mistake is the definition of “bad faith engagement”.
Edit: to clarify even further: since I commented on the text of the article, I’m replying to the summary. Maybe that’s the part you’re confused by.
Congratulations, you have won a coupon for one free semantic argument. You can exchange this coupon for one semantic argument, which will go unchallenged. You may also exchange this coupon for one saltine cracker, slightly stale but most likely still edible.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A reported Ukrainian drone strike Friday caused Moscow to shut down all four of its major airports, CNN reports.
“The drone was jammed and fell near the settlement of Putilkovo, which is near the Russian capital, causing no casualties or damage,” the Russian defense ministry said in a statement to CNN.
This development comes as Ukraine increases the frequency of drone attacks throughout Russia, according to CNN.
Ukrainian officials also claimed their Air Force claimed it had destroyed fifteen Russian-made drones and carried out ten group attacks, the outlet reports.
Meanwhile, Chernihiv — a city in northern Ukraine — is reeling from a Russian missile strike on a theater and university that has killed at least seven people and injured 90, CNN reports.
Among those killed was a six-year-old girl, and first responders have taken a twelve-year-old girl in “grave condition” to Kyiv for treatment, local officials told the outlet.
The original article contains 186 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 19%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That’s way too many qualifiers. I understand being cautious with your statements, but this is almost unreadable.
You are replying to a bot
“You” doesn’t mean I’m talking to the bot, I’m using it as a general descriptor for a person. I could have said “I understand being cautious with one’s statements”, but that’s very formal and unnecessary in a comment on a social media website. I can easily imagine you reading a sentence like “You need to study really hard to get to Harvard” and think someone is talking to you personally instead of making a general statement.
Communication is a cooperative process, interpreting what others say maliciously and automatically assuming they made a mistake is the definition of “bad faith engagement”.
Edit: to clarify even further: since I commented on the text of the article, I’m replying to the summary. Maybe that’s the part you’re confused by.
Congratulations, you have won a coupon for one free semantic argument. You can exchange this coupon for one semantic argument, which will go unchallenged. You may also exchange this coupon for one saltine cracker, slightly stale but most likely still edible.
I read it, you read it… it’s a conversation thread.
Is there some notion that replying on lemmy must be strictly to engage the parent comments author?
Because I’ve never seen so many people policing replies as I have here. It’s like we hate engagement or something.