Russia does not have the resources to occupy Ukraine. They can invade it they can't occupy it. The amount of troops and resources needed to occupy a hostile nation is extremely well researched and well understood. And Russia with its population of 120 million can't even come close. They don't have the troops they don't have the money and they don't even have the population for it.

If they tried they would get bogged down in insurgency that makes Afghanistan look like a Sunday picnic. Never mind the fact that the rest of the world would be flooding Ukraine with weapons to keep Russia busy.

That means Russia will go straight to genocide. Every single person in Ukraine will be killed or sent to death camps to be worked until they die. The only exception will be people who flee.

That is the only thing Putin can do with the country. Kill everyone there and put his own people in.

Incidentally every single world leader knows that this is going to happen if Russia wins and they are letting Russia continue this war instead of properly arming Ukraine because it's beneficial to them to do so so long as Russia doesn't completely take the region. If Russia takes the region it'll kind of suck for Europe because Europe wants access to Ukraine's bread basket. But it's worth the risk to do this much damage to Russia. At least as far as European leadership is concerned. American too Frankly and I'm not happy about that

Why isn't this +5 yet? Shameful. They should bring back meta-moderation.

So it's not that easy to get your hands on something that valuable. If Ukraine had the dirt on Trump then it would already be out there. Putin is completely incompetent at virtually everything. He can't run a country and he can't run a war.

But he is good at two things. First he's good at feudalism. Which is basically the technique of playing all the other people who are trying to replace you as King rat against each other so you stay on top. And the second thing he's really good at is information warfare. It's literally what he did at the the kgb.

If they're not intelligence, why is making them fearful going to change that? Isn't the basic behavioral prediction that their decision-making will get worse when afraid?

If "fear works," why do workers with angry managers have lower productivity?

The evidence shows that many people still forget before the first coffee break, and their number exceeds the minimum threshold that makes attacks successful.

Critical thinking should lead to the realization that running the tests often enough to keep the problem in the spotlight is not sufficient to prevent the problem.

Technical solutions are required, but they come with expense. Both in equipment, and convenience. Until IT security is seen as a minimum requirement, it will appear as a sacrifice, and modern business decision-making isn't prepared for that. Once it is accepted as a minimum, then it is understood not to be a sacrifice at all, but useful spending and action.

I don't mind a "gotcha" test, the problem is when it promises something of value and is, in actual fact, sent by the person you thought it was being sent by.

In that case, it seems like they have to give the employees the thing, in addition to the training.

My advice to IT departments: Work with HR to identify a reward that you will give to all employees, and an additional reward you'll give to employees who pass the test. And then do the test, and everybody gets the promised reward, the people who clicked the link also get training, and the people who didn't get a (probably better) additional reward.

Otherwise, don't promise anything; trick them with something that looks like a business email, not a fake promise.

That's just it, and that's why it isn't possible to communicate with you.

I didn't "interpret" what you said. I read it, and used the meaning of the words as the meaning.

Now you're saying junk with a completely different meaning.

And that's probably not what you mean, either.

They're just excerpts from your right wing hate religion's media programs that were adjacent to the subject other people are communicating about. You don't know what's going on in the world around you; you only know what hateful hyperbole was spewed at the same time as words about current events.

You even admit it without realizing it; the argument you're engaging in is a mere detail to you. All you're doing is pointing at your virtue, as evidenced by who you hate.

"We added cruft again and again, surely that's what programmers do to make a language better!"

Yeah, you're right! It got even worse when they realized they did need those things, but didn't want to change the architecture to be like other languages. Why do other languages do it that way? Because they're stupid! We'll just tack it on in the least obtrusive way. Sure that's better than having architecture that's built around the algorithms everybody else knew we'd need....

So you're disputing even that it was true? You're as arrogantly stupid as he was!

Sorry, you're right, I cited the wrong case. in Cramer vs. USA (1945) there was never a question about whether Germany was an enemy. The focus was on whether Cramer provided aid or comfort, and the conclusion was that he didn't.

The definition of an "enemy" as a foreign power engaged in war with the USA comes from cases connected to the US Civil War, and English common-law sources used by the US Constitution framers.

Prosecutors face an enormous hurdle to charge someone with treason. Part of that hurdle is the fact that an enemy must be formally declared to be in a war with the USA before any charges of treason can be contemplated. This is as it should be: treason is a serious crime that demands serious conditions be met.

There are crimes other than treason that prosecutors can charge someone with for hostile acts against the USA. For example, the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, but conspiracy to commit espionage, because at the time the USA was not at war with the Soviet Union, even though they were considered to be hostile adversaries.

Obligatory XKCD.

Maybe I need that one. ;-P

When I had Comcast in the SF Bay Area, it was rock solid. Did not go down for months (or years) at a time. However, other people in the same city found it to be unreliable.

Why can't Spectrum give me a symmetric connection? I get ~700Mbps down and only ~36Mbps up.

The problems are not technology-related, they are policy decisions.

At my last house, I had fiber with a 700Mbs down/700Mbps up connection, but every evening between 10:00pm and 11:00pm it dropped out for 5 minutes.

Just because it isn't in the US Constitution doesn't mean it's nowhere else.

Cramer vs. The United States (1945) resulted in a ruling from SCOTUS that an "enemy" must be an actual recognized foreign power actively engaged in war with the USA. The current conflict with Iran, or indeed any other current conflict, don't apply because they are hostile adversaries, not "enemies" under the strict US definition relevant here.

Congress has the power to penalize treason, per 18 US Code Section 2381. The Justice Department relies on this and precedent to determine whether a charge of treason is possible. Currently it is not.