cosmicgadget

What a crazy thing to commit a felony for. Almost beyond belief.

> it's my wife's fault we raised the flag upside down on January 6

Yeah, there's quite a lot of reason to believe SCOTUS is political. I think the simplest one: the conservative justices lied and/or told half-truths about their views on Roe v Wade. Under oath. The ones who lied are liars. The ones who dodged the question are politicians.

As I understand it, one of the main disenfranchisement tactics is to challenge ballots already cast. It's potentially very effective because the voter must see that their vote was challenged and then proactively contest it.

Does the decision make this easier?

I mean typically the outcome of civil suits is black and white (at least on a per-claim basis).

So Amazon and Microsoft don't enforce cloud licensing agreements with the USG? If the government wants to add 3,000 Windows users to support their mission Microsoft is shit out of luck in getting paid for them?

The hidden upside for Anthropic is now they won't be forced to refer to AI as "SI".

Not ones whose defense customer base is dwarfed by its commercial customer base.

Making it a 0/1 situation is really reductive.

Dodd-Frank? CFPB?

Wouldn't that make any product with a licensing agreement a supply chain risk?

> I hope NATO leadership isn't as blythe as you about the changing face of war.

I am fairly confident they are not. And I'm not blythe about it, I just don't see Russia as being some sort of dominant drone army and believe the location that 20 km-wide no man's land is pretty strong evidence. And that there are many aspects of armed conflict we are not seeing in Ukraine.

> WSJ (links an editorial)

The US is in NATO. Iran isn't being bombed by NATO.

> NATO doesn't know how to fight drones, or how to operate in a front line that's 20km deep and the enemy knows everything going in it

Source: youtube I imagine. Speculation is fine but here you are making assertions without evidence.

> The battlefield transparency that drones bring is a sea change in warfare

And it began 20 years ago.

> Could NATO take a million+ casualties

This is a weird argument for the effectivness of your Russian drone infantry.

> If that Russian drone infantry suddenly showed up on Estonia's borders

They teleport now too? This is getting serious. I imagine within a week Putin would be meeting Gaddafi's fate. Attacking NATO is nothing like bullying a smaller country with no defense pacts. China and India would stop being patron states. You'd see a half dozen Prigozhins as the oligarchs would realize it's not survivable.

> The Pentagon does not see drone warfare as a top priority.

Anduril, GA, Boeing, and Lockmart absolutely inconsolable right now.

> Ukraine showed that's not at all how it has to be fought.

You're taking a regional conflict between militaries using cold war gear and drones and saying "this is what warfare is now".

> They've already got their human waves and infantry infiltration tactics worked out

A million casualties and three-year stalemate in Ukraine is "worked out"? Good for them. I see those swarms are especially effective at defending energy infrastructure, something that's of particular concern when you're fighting an alliance with stealth aircraft.

> under a cloud of drones and cruise missiles that NATO has no counter for

This is the Russian drone infantry currently occupying Kyiv?

> the US just disbanded its drone warfare division because drones aren't manly enough for Hegseth

Please explain what you think this means.

So not a territorial threat. You just wish NATO were big and powerful like... Turkey.

Were any of these 'probes' actual territorial threats? Cause if not what you're calling a paper tiger is just a cool head.

An actual confrontation would probably go like the battle of Khasham.

Peripheral countries are demilitarized but maintain Article V status, Putin is exiled to Saint Helena and required to spend the remainder of his life lecturing Tucker Carlson on Russian history.

... because American or European boots on the ground would be viewed as escalatory by an extremely embarrassed Russian state.

The most capable military in Europe is NATO, if that counts.

Russia doesn't have the armor or logistics to "easily take over the Baltics", particularly considering it would trigger Article V.

The Russian Air Force could not hope to bomb anything beyond the range of standoff munitions.

> “We’ve said repeatedly that we have no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently addressed this issue in detail, emphasizing that we have no interest in doing so,” he said.

Where have I heard this before?

Oh it was Milley who sent the Russian column of armor toward Kyiv with no logistical support. Thank you for clearing that up.

This reads like Putin fandom.

> lawfare

Ah yes, boxes upon boxes of national secrets retained to discredit John Bolton who is, coincidentally, going to be convicted for doing the same.

Well, for that and possibly to share with certain guests.

They'll screech about Pelosi and give it zero additional thought.

Why are you here?

Yes, Bernie Sanders, the alternative with just morals and vibes. No experience whatsoever.

Can you rephrase this to be an honest question?

In his mind the American people endorsed this behavior at the ballot box. And he is right.

They'd also flag it if they thought it was okay but "a bad look". Most of the Trump voter cope I read starts with, "I agree with him on a lot of things but..."

Obama with his bourgeois dijon mustard was misaligned. This is predatory.

People talking about addictiveness but from what I can tell this is all about how effective the content filters are. Tiktok being held liable for the efficacy of its controls is a much bigger issue than this one case.