

Tankies are just extremely weird people.
Tankies are just extremely weird people.
No you didn’t. Every major country has standing armies well over 100k. The entire EU has ~1.3M active duty troops.
Just FYI to other readers, this is just made up. Like not even “did a search and is being a little hyperbolic”, just not even in the vague realm of reality.
Seems like a pretty big omission to describe her simply as “author”.
That’s still not being a scientist. Might as well induct Steve Jobs or the Sacklers.
One side being weaker and reliant on outside support is not what makes something a proxy war.
I think you’d need a little more than that to make sure the restriction isn’t used defensively by harassers (one of the reasons people ask for this is to show others bad behavior in their replies). But it does feel like a solvable problem.
And Mastodon having more active moderation (since you can proactively look for an instance that meets your moderation expectations) also means the stuff that can’t be handled mechanically can be managed.
WHY DO THEY HAVE CLASSIFIED DATA?
That’s not something you just give access to because someone says they want it and they’re high up in the command structure.
That’s an incredibly dumb way to judge nominees. Do you think Hegseth is somehow a good Defense Secretary? Or RFK is a good Health Secretary?
One fash voting against them doesn’t somehow imply they have a potential for good in them. Bad people oppose other bad people all the time. And I’ve been seeing what she does for over a decade. Tulsi is very much a bad person.
And I’ll note that my concern is less her personal ideology and more her willingness to say whatever for personal advancement. I’m a resident of her state and thus have followed her career for a long time. She’s bounced between ideologies back and forth based on whatever would advance her career at the moment. If I had to guess I’d say this current incarnation might be more legit than others (she was raised conservative and 9/11 occurred during her formative years), but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if this is just what’s useful to her right now.
Not that it did much good or deserves praise, but there was resistance to fabricating the WMD intel for Bush and some limitations on what they were willing to say (even while participating in a deadly deception). I don’t think Gabbard will have any resistance at all. Putting a charismatic liar who likes to be in front of the camera in a position that can influence military action (and which is most visible when military action is happening) with little risk of the public being able to check her facts is terrifying.
That’s almost exactly the number of expected retirements. I think it’s something like 110k regular retirements in a year and the period covers 2/3rds of a year, so it’s basically spot on.
Her whole deal during the Obama administration was criticizing him on Fox News for not calling terrorism “Islamic” enough and not doing enough drone strikes.
Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists. (tweet)
Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911 (tweet)
“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” Gabbard told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald in 2016. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.” (source, HTH original no longer online)
She’s not bad for the job because she’s incompetent though. She’s bad because she’s compromised and willing to say whatever she needs to say to advance her own interests and the interests of her patrons (Trump definitely, Modi and Putin maybe).
Intelligence was lied about to get us into the Iraq War and Gabbard has been super is hawkish about the drone war. She’s going to lead to more of that, not dismantle the institution. Get ready for manufactured intelligence about how Gaza has dirty bombs built by Iran and transported through the Suez Canal for some reason.
Blago was the other guy. He pardoned him this time around. In his first term Trump commuted his sentence.
If you read the paper this is based on, there’s little reason to think this. It’s just supposition by the authors in an unpublished arXiv paper.
Google already has tracking cookies for advertising all over the place. Capturing behavior on a captcha challenge is of little extra utility.
Not LLMs, self-driving cars. Ever noticed how most of the challenges are things you need to recognize while driving?
They don’t seem to actually identify the cookies as tracking (as opposed to just identifying that the account can bypass further challenges), just assuming that any third party cookie has a monetary tracking value.
It also appears to be unreviewed and unpublished a few years later. Just being in paper format and up on arXiv doesn’t mean that the contents are reliable science.
This is a nonsense attempt at a gotcha. I have nothing to withhold from the NCAA and thus no leverage to apply. What answer would you even expect here?
I’m going to keep bringing this up, because you’ve no doubt heard this poem many times in your lifetime, but what do you think “They Came For” is about? Because your answer to all of this just seems to be “it’s too hard, no one should do anything unless they’re personally impacted”. And it’s good you’re getting out, but you don’t need to justify it by pretending no one can do anything and no one should take any risks for their fellow man.
There’s no such thing as “authorization”. The US can make whatever deals it likes, it doesn’t mean Ukraine has to listen. There’s no such thing as “international enforcement” in the first place, just individual nations flexing power on other nations.
US weapons are important to Ukraine, so the US could flex that power and try to make Ukraine do what it says by withholding them, but if they think they can go it alone or Europe steps up, they don’t need to listen.