No! No! This has nothing to do with Hannibal! Nothing at all!

I know some people are going to say that Hannibal took elephants across the Alps all those years ago. The same people who talk about the Medieval Warm period.

Well I am just telling you, this has nothing to do with Hannibal! There is a reason why the Guardian's coverage of the Climate Crisis and pending Climate Catastrophe doesn't mention Hannibal, its because he has nothing to do with this. So stop criticizing the Guardian for not mentioning him!

Yes, its so tiring, would you people all stop talking about Hannibal, and also you can stop talking about the Medieval and Roman Warm periods too while you are at it. Thank you. I will go back to reading the Guardian now, and its independent journalism, which I really would like to be able to do without being threatened in slashdot with violence from Hannibal and having slashdot made an unsafe place on account of this Hannibalistic Exxon funded denial of the ongoing Climate Crisis and Catastrophe.

Thank you.

You doubt this, look up the Clark County debacle. Just one example, but it shows you the nature of the creature. Are we reporting on the US election? Or are we trying to get the right candidate elected? Or do we even understand the question?

Its another of these endless number of stories slashdot carries now from the UK Guardian. The UK Guardian isn't a trustworthy source of news. It isn't even primarily a news organization. Its an activist organization which publishes an in-house news journal. Its aim is not to report on how the world is, but to change the world to how it should be, and editorial policy and news coverage and reporting are managed with that objective. You can no more expect objective journalism from it than you could from Pravda, and for the same reason.

They have never read Orwell and so with a straight face proclaim this as 'independent journalism'. Independent from journalism maybe.

Chatbots have been biased since I remember. You ask the right question, you get the opinion of someone who was in charge.

I doubt you can trust even today's chatbots etc. to be 'unbiased', though in the current political landscape everyone thins what they disagree with is 'biased', neither genuine nor true.

Such has been politics since Aristotle. Add in violence, and, well, some like von Clausewitz believe all politics is violence of some form. Which I write not to endorse physical violence in any form, but to indict those who do.

If you do the numbers, you see that with the new method you'd need about 80% as many attempts as before. That's still much.

"Guys, guys, guys calm down. Stalin has assured us that it's only a one time temporary abrogation of our freedoms and he has no plans to ever do anything else. He wouldn't lie? Right?"

The water is already bubbling around the frog.

When did this happen? Citation, please.

You are aware that Joe Biden, while seemingly a nice enough guy, was wildly unpopular as a leader, including among the left? It was the Democrats, after all, who convinced him not to run for a second term.

What's being alleged here is closer to price fixing, which is also an antitrust violation. Hypothetically, let's say four major automakers got together and said, "We all know we have access to the latest in brake technology, but we collectively agree not to deploy it until two years from now," presumably for business reasons. That kind of collusion is illegal.

Everybody seems to be complaining ... although that's nothing new. Some people hate Gnome, others hate KDE.

So I ask you (everybody): Is anything good? Cuz we ain't gonna have the Year of the Linux Desktop without a UI. Do we all switch to Enlightenment?

The New York Times won one for genocide denial during the holodomor. It's not something to be proud of.

... But it is for surveillance of the population, so it does not rise up.

When the official current AI business model fails, what else would the infrastructure be useful for?

It is already being done. Anthr*pic is already being used to spy on protestors.

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Oh, I neglected to add...

"Because blowing shit up in any orbit, is so self-defeating a child could see it."

You're correct. And your complaint is also with the CCP. But war is always a gamble - can you win something worth more than the costs? Or can you defeat the aggressor with acceptable costs? Look carefully at the Ukraine conflict. While it seems that Ukraine is somehow succeeding at assymetrical warfare, listen to reporters on the ground. The mainstream is publishing propaganda, nothing new there. And it may seem this is illustrating the 'future of warfare'. Or it's smoke and mirrors, and a different game is truly afoot. Starlink could be destroyed, perhaps, with a Kessler attack, kill enough birds to cause fratricide. Destroy the geostationary birds? That's more damaging and gets a different response. Kill the surveillance birds in polar orbit? A different response. The CCP would be playing the long game I think. We would play the retaliatory game, I think. The mid powers are all spectators, and they are beginning to hate that, but they can't afford to play. The US must only match capability for now. There are alternatives to on-orbit destruction. We'll develop those.

Oh, so you mean. 'China deployed a weapon in space and *used* it'?