…by having actual experts feed her sensiblr answers, demonstrating a good politician’s critical judgement of her own limits and trust in the subject matter expertise of others for good decision making

Are you trying to argue that laws and treaties are worthless unless enough people abide by them and are willing to enforce them?

Because, yes, that is the fundamental principle of society: We need to work together to survive and thrive, so we agree on rules by which we work, and enforce them on those that break them. If you disagree with something but take no steps to oppose it, your disagreement is just as worthless as a law nobody cares to enforce.

So what point are you trying to make here? “If China enforced their claim and nobody stopped them, their claim would be effectively valid”? How is that relevant to the situation if all they’re doing is protesting, but nobody else cares to back them up and they don’t actually take measures to prevent the passage?

“If I put pineapple on my Pizza and nobody stops or punishes me, it’s legal”? Yes. Congrats. You understood the very basics. Want a sticker?

That’s the old TV show host shining through, whose only concern is the size of the audience. His “show” not drawing a huge crowd kicked the attention-addict right in the self-esteem and he’s still pissed enough that even his delusion can’t mask it.

No billionaire wants to lose profits

A specialist in one field isn’t necessarily adept in another, and particularly coming from STEM to humanities seems a particularly treacherous transition because so much about humans is based on premises that cold, logical STEM principles just aren’t aware of. That doesn’t mean we STEMs are stupid, we just don’t know just how much there is that we don’t know and would need to know before we can understand, let alone predict human behaviour.

I know I’ve found myself grossly misjudging human reactions in some case because humans are complex and there are so mamy premises and factors affecting individual behaviour and so many more for collective behaviour that they’re effectively non-deterministic and even predicting the probabilities requires such familiarity with the people or demographics, respectively.

All that is to say: Yes, I think so too. She’s well-educated, but not above tripping over the same, common stone that many smart people have stumbled on.

That would be perfect, yes

On one hand, I think it perfectly acceptable and reasonable to oppose the enemy’s employment of some measure on the grounds of them being your enemy and you wanting to defend yourself while simultaneously employing the same measure for your own policy goals. That’s usually how war works, whether cold or hot: weapons are employed if they’re effective, regardless of whether they’re fair for the other side, because you can’t really trust the opponent to also refrain from using an effective weapon.

Mutually Assured Destruction works as a nuclear deterrent because its sheer destructive power risks killing your own people too, and most countries’ grand strategy prioritises their own preservation over the enemies’ destruction. Chemical weapons were “banned” because they were of little value to the major powers’ military system, which has less people hiding in foxholes and trenches, generally making conventional munitions blowing up moving targets more effective than denying an area to your own mobile forces in the hopes of dislodging a dug-in enemy that might have protective equipment anyway.

On the other hand, I resent the damage warfare does to civilians, whether in the form of actual destruction or just sowing division and strife between their factions. Arguably, it might be defensible if you’re simply exposing the truth and hoping to convince a sufficient majority to act on those revelations, but who would be the judge? Who could vouch for that? How could propaganda even account for the nuances and complexities of the issue they’d hypothetically expose without neutering its own effect?

So yes, I’d prefer to see money spent on fixing issues, education in critical thinking, communicating nuances the enemy’s propaganada glosses over or misrepresents. Making your opponent’s situation worse doesn’t help your people. Even if it might “defeat” the enemy in some sense - render them unable or unwilling to oppose you - it creates misery.

The only winners are those that profit from the issues and/or the conflict and don’t care about the individual peasant: Corporate executives, large shareholders, politicians campaigning on them…

(I don’t think I needed to spell that one out, but given the topic, it felt appropriate to be clear)

Maybe the journalist wanted to be “neutral” and “unbiased” and thought that meant pulling a bOtH SiDeS

He’s a poor conman who got lucky to have really gullible marks.

Are you suggesting that rapid offensives - lunging out beyond your logistical network without taking the time to have your auxiliary force fully equipped for the task you expect of them - are a bad idea and will lead to said auxiliary forces putting in but a token effort instead of dying for an ally that clearly doesn’t give enough of a shit about their lives?

“Nobody” probably isn’t literal here, but I imagine some manager scheduling a meeting where they want a report on the game’s performance and feedback during the beta. Some higher up is going to sit in for the first few minutes for the KPI summary.

The sweating analyst jokes about the heat in the room, the higher up dryly remarks that the AC seems to be working just fine. The presentation starts, the analyst grasping for some more weasel words and void sentences to stall with before finally switching to the second slide, captioned “Player count”. It’s a big, fat 0.

They stammer their way through half a sentence of trying to describe this zero, then fall silent, staring at their shoes. The game dev lead has a thousand yard stare. The product owner is trying to maintain composure.

The uncomfortable silence is finally broken by the manager, getting up to leave: “I think we’re done here.” There is an odd sense of foreboding, that “here” might not just mean the meeting. The analyst silently proceeds to the next slide, showing the current player count over time in a line chart.

Devs be applying like “Hi! I’d like to join your development team! My professional qualifications are that I’ve spent eight years working on a failed game!”

Of course, it won’t be the individual devs’ fault but I don’t have any difficulties imagining that some of them have a harder time finding new jobs than people who were let go after the launch of more popular games.

Linux is free and open source software ecosystem. It’s like handing people free brushes, canvases and paints - sure, removing the financial hurdles may enable talents otherwise unable to afford indulging their artistic streak, but you also can’t really prevent anyone from painting awful bullshit. Best you can do is not give them attention or a platform to advertise their stuff on.

That’s the price of freedom: It also extends to assholes. We can’t start walling off Linux, so the best we can do is individually wall them off from our own life and hope enough other people around us do it too.

I’ll plug an interesting blog post on the topic of using chemical weapons. The post concerns itself mostly with lethal weapons, but I feel like some of the points apply here as well.

The essence is that for modern military systems, mobility and the relative cost of manufacturing, storing and employing (lethal) chemical weapons compared to protective equipment render them much less valuable than conventional explosive munitions. They see usage mostly between weaker static armies, which lack the equipment, training or command doctrines for modern warfare.

The banning of chemical weapons was done because they weren’t generally very useful for the modern systems of the superpowers at the time. Russia cracking them out again suggests they no longer have all the capabilities of a modern superpower. Which probably isn’t super new for most people, but might be worth spelling out anyway.

I mean, go ahead and implement it if you think “That’s pretty hard to do, so we opted not to put significant development resources into one feature” is a poor excuse. If the team is working under pressure already, they’ll have to prioritise and I assume this got shoved down the lst.

You seem really invested in pointing out those shortcomings. I respect that.

I believe Mango is saying that the Trump staffer is lying when he claims that the cemetery staffer had a mental health issue.

The cemetery staffer was doing his duty, but if the Trump campaign admitted that, they would admit that assaulting him was wrong. So instead, the Trump staffer deflects that criticism by claiming that the cemetery staffer was having a mental health episode.

So rather than blaming issues caused by service, the Trump staffer completely made up issues to justify their behaviour.

It’s highly disrespectful to veterans either way, of course.

From someone growing up religious:

FUCK
YOU

(Directed at Vance, not OP)

Trebuchet

Because they assumed that the moral high ground would net them more voters than joining in the mud-slinging. “They go low, we go high” is a quite noble sentiment that should appeal to decent people to vote for them, if for no other reason than to keep the rude man-child out of office. They hoped that even the apathetic non-voters would be moved to cast a vote against the Temper-Tantrump.

It didn’t work, as we know now, but I can’t fault them for remembering the times when class and dignity mattered and hoping to extend those times.

Harris’ team seems to have learned that lesson. Here’s to hoping this actually works better.