I think 70 is just the amount to earn enough to keep their budget at the current level. So below that, they still make a profit, just not enough to cover their spending.

Wasn't the point behind them to just have direct deliveries from China, so they wouldn't need to build the logistics themselves?

Now usually around 30% of the price of the game goes to the digital distributor. Sure that replaces both the physical cost of the cartridge and of distribution. But even subtracting an extra 25% or 30% from the 150$ price, would leave you over the 100 dollar price point discussed here.

Which adds extra costs at least. So either russia earns less on the oil or china needs to pay more, reducing the incentive for them to buy it there instead of from another source.
Which is of course not as good as halting the trade altogether, but still better than not doing anything.

Well the US is very actively working on stopping that trend. I had a colleague who thought of going there and stayed in Europe due to current circumstances. Additionally, some senior scientists giving me advice for after my PhD, very explicitly told me to better not go into the US right now.

From what I read, it is actually data on the general population. The paper in question is a secondary analysis of existing surveys, picking out data in the relevant timeframe. So they didn't directly sample people involved in the campaign, but people from the general target demographic.

The connection to awareness is given by the fact that the study is done in the context of a specific large awareness campaign in the UK, that ended in 2023. They credit this campaign for the improvements in the first time interval, while proposing its end as a factor for the decrease afterwards.

To the extent it does so, it brings exactly other factors forward, like a difficult economic situation and problems with the availability of mental healthcare.

I looked into the study a bit, but didn't read it completely, so I might have missed some points. From what I read I don't see how it supports the thesis of "too much awareness" at all.
In general it is mostly descriptive, presenting the data, only giving very limited and cautious interpretation.

Then I have bad news because we already all died the last time a nuclear superpower dissolved into several states, with the USSR in the nineties.
Wait, that didn't lead to any nuclear disasters, so we maybe shouldn't surrender to Russia just because of that fear.

It is only stealth because so close to the ground it's harder to pick up by radar.

This is the quote that I can't shake. State, USAID, the department of education, NSF, etc. Institution after institution being gutted being met by a broad based shrug by the public. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are in the streets protesting a corruption law in the middle of the fight of their lives...

Je mehr sich aber Politiker hier in öffentlichen Diskussionen dazu auslassen, einzelne NATO-Staaten überhaupt nicht verteidigen zu wollen, umso wahrscheinlicher wird so ein Angriff. Wenn es keine Gegenwehr zu erwarten gibt, warum sollte er es in seiner Sicht dann nicht probieren?