tediousgraffit1

> It was split off from the Soviet union in 1990 and governed itself the whole time despite being essentially a vassal state of Russia.

It's obvious that Russia wants ukraine as a vassal as well. I would note that the invasion of Ukraine was launched _via_ Belarus, despite the fact that Russia does not formally control that territory. So again I ask, if Russia can get what it wants (which is _control_, not territory) without going to war, why would it do so?

Let's be plain - we are ultimately dancing around an empirical question, whether Trump will be hawkish or dovish towards Russia. Ultimately I think he's too chaotic for past behavior to be a good guide. So let's see what happens! I for one hope that you are right, but I think I have plenty of reasons to be cautious.

So not because ukraine rejected them in 2013? To be explicit, I still have seen no evidence for the premise that '_some_ amount of war' was inevitable. Belarus would seem to be an obvious counterexample.

Why do you think Russia wants territory? Why did they suddenly develop an appetite for territory in 2014?

This line of reasoning keeps popping up and something about it bothers me - why go to war when you can get what you want in other, cheaper ways? It seems likely the correlation is real but so far no one has adduced any reasons to assume the causation actually goes the way they assume.

literal rat race when?

I'd love to try this against my spaghetti, but I can't send my company's IP to you or anthropic or anyone else. I'll have to try against open source projects we rely heavily on first.

this is a really important point that's not clear to me - from the [ap news article](https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-meta-settl...) linked in the top comment -

> At the time, more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users had opted in to have their faces recognized by the social network’s system. Facebook introduced facial recognition more than a decade earlier but gradually made it easier to opt out of the feature as it faced scrutiny from courts and regulators.

it also suggests some important details, like the fact that this was already opt-in:

> At the time, more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users had opted in to have their faces recognized by the social network’s system.

the ap news article linked by the top comment indicates that they deleted 'faceprints':

> The company announced in 2021 that it was shutting down its face-recognition system and delete the faceprints of more than 1 billion people...

from the better ap-news article linked by the top comment:

> The company announced in 2021 that it was shutting down its face-recognition system and delete the faceprints of more than 1 billion people amid growing concerns about the technology and its misuse by governments, police and others.

> The attorney general’s office did not say whether the money from the settlement would go into the state’s general fund or if it would be distributed in some other way.

so where's that money going to wind up?