And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
lol you do know that it's mostly Democrats getting torpedoed by their appearance there, right?
No, I didn't know that. And if it's true, I don't care. If it's true.
Before anyone else points this out, I do consider Stalin to be an exception to those who were "respectable." Having him in the group was a marriage of convenience, followed by a quick divorce leading into the Cold War.
You seem to think that the current strikes against Iran by the USA and Israel are an attempt to get Iran to treat its people more humanely.
No, they are a pressure tactic to bend Iran's resolve in nuclear negotiations -- which would not have been necessary if Trump hadn't torn up the JCPOA signed on July 14, 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the USA. But that agreement happened during Obama's administration, so in Trump's mind, it had to go.
And, perhaps -- oh, say -- these strikes are meant to distract the American people from the Epstein files.
Germany and Japan faced allied forces, not just the USA on its own. And those world leaders were a tad more respectable than the ones leading the current aggressions in Iran.
In short, I don't have the same hope for a positive outcome as you might.
As TFS points out, Iran cutting off the internet is basically just Tuesday.
The real story is what induced Iranian authorities to cut it off this time.
Let's not add the fact that reflecting sunlight onto the earth at night increases warming.
You're not wrong, but by how much? Even if this plan gets anywhere near a scale that yields useful energy, I think it needs to be weighed against the kinds of energy-generation methods we use already that unquestionably warm the planet -- and may also produce greenhouse gasses.
And for the record, I'm not exactly a fan of this new idea. I like night skies and I want to keep them.
if [Anthropic's Terms of Service] violates the constitution i don't know but that should have been known a while ago
I can tell you right now: Anthropic's Terms of Service cannot violate the Constitution. That's impossible: the Constitution constrains the government, not Anthropic.
In fact, Anthropic's Terms of Service are protected by the First Amendment. There could be provisions in law that constrain what a company can put in such a document, but absent such things, the Constitution is on Anthropic's side.
You mean the seemingly endless leftwards march of the media is finally stopping? I hope you're right.
Persecution complex much? Media is not as leftwards-leaning as you seem to think. Here, this may help.
Trump is one guy. Half of the US disagrees with the political agenda of TV writers. It would be wise for media companies to be less politically polarized.
It would be even wiser for people to be aware of any polarization present in the stories they read. And it's not all from the left, as you seem to think. Here's another tool that may help.
The reason the [electoral college] is good is that it doesn't ensure power is concentrated in the most populous states.
Think about what you're saying. How does a popular vote for president concentrate power in the most populous states? It just reflects the wishes of everyone in the voting population no matter where they live.
Contrast that with the electoral college, where the more populous states have more electoral-college votes, and those states with winner-take-all turn a popular-vote plurality for a candidate into 100% of their electoral-college votes.
Of these two systems, it's clear which one concentrates power in the most populous states.
Kegseth isn't going to invoke the DPA. They seem to get away with crazy shit that just hurts people, but they're trying not to spook the market, and going old-school socialist in peacetime is a bit much.
It's not just hard-core socialists who want to control the means of production. Fascists want to do the same thing, but for a very different reason: to implement and support a permanent, heightened military posture for the nation. What view would fit in this case?
Interesting. The article headline doesn't really reflect the content. Paramount may be poised to buy Warner (and CNN along with it) but it hasn't happened yet, has it?
It was not immediately clear how the Pentagon intends to label Anthropic a supply chain risk — which typically requires the government and its contractors to cut ties with that company — while simultaneously invoking the Defense Production Act to compel the company to cooperate with the Pentagon.
Anthropic CEO Amodei's response to this was priceless. From TFA:
Amodei said Thursday that “those latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.”
Christ on a bun. And it gets worse:
Emil Michael, [DoD] undersecretary for research and engineering, later lashed out at the Anthropic CEO, alleging on X that Amodei “has a God-complex” and “wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk.”
Whoa Emil, stop clutching your pearls, you'll choke yourself. Amodei is trying to uphold the policies of his company regarding the use of their product, and you think that means he's " try[ing] to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk"? Dude, this is a democracy. You have access to many military contractors. Perhaps Anthropic is not the one for you -- excuse me, not the one for what you think the military needs to do.
even if one candidate gets more popular votes, by a wide margin, the other candidate can still win.
Yup. It happened in 2000 and 2016.
It's the applications for de-naturalization that represent non-retirees. You don't usually renounce your citizenship to retire overseas.
Are you trying to imply that anyone who emigrates and keeps their US citizenship is a retiree? Because I don't think that's true at all.
US citizens who retire abroad could renounce their US citizenship without consequences, if they are living in a country that has an agreement with the US that allows them to continue to receive Social Security as non-citizens.
Sure, there are drawbacks to renouncing your citizenship, not the least of which is the lack of status if you wish to return and reside. But there are also benefits, like relief from having to file US tax returns anymore.
As for non-retirees who emigrate, they may choose to remain US citizens with legal residence in another country. They could even become dual citizens if their new country permits it. There's nothing in principle that forces a non-retiree emigrant to de-naturalize.
LOL, these are Americans, the Average IQ goes down wherever they go!
And wherever they came from.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
