Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CI
Posts
0
Comments
981
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • That's not how this type of influence is exerted. It's done by putting people in charge who will run it in a way that will keep their boss happy, which then leads to them hiring people who will keep their boss happy, and so on and so forth.

    Editorial discretion, self-censorship, or pink slips, that message is going to do one thing: not rock the billionaire's boat.

  • That's not how those schemes work.

    Buffet, Gates, the Patagonia family, etc., all those Billionaires do is transfer all their wealth, tax free, into "charitable" entities that their descendants can continue to live off of, and profit from, indefinitely.

    That by itself is sinister, but the worst part is that the majority of people actually believe they're really giving away their wealth. So they cheat the system, that they already rigged, and it actually gives them a better public image.

  • You realize that if they dosed the kids with hydromorphone they wouldn't be charged with "giving kids in their care hydromorphone", right?

    If Fred commits murder by putting a bag over his victims head, he isn't charged with "placing a bag over the victim's head". He's charged with murder.

    These people endangered the safety of the children in their care, by secretly dosing them with psychotropic substances, en masse, and without their parents knowledge, or permission. Their actions endangered those children's safety, which is what they were arrested for.

  • No kidding. When I read that, my first thought was, "He's clearly at least above the median intelligence of his fellow Arizona GOP reps, if not in the top 10% of their entire conference"

    Anyone who read the article AND has experience with the Arizona GOP, probably thought the same thing.

    The Arizona GOP collects some of the dumbest people alive.

  • Even if you trust that one feature will actually be disabled, that was just one example.

    Do you really believe you can disable and remove all of the numerous data collection and spyware components that are baked into all aspects of the OS?

    I'm not saying no one should use Windows 11, but they should be honest with themselves about the trade-off they're accepting.

  • The major problems isn't Windows 11 usability, although those issues due exist. UI and workflow issues can typically get addressed, or mitigated, by 3rd party tools.

    The real concerns are the exponential increases in spyware, such as the AI recovery tool that records all user interactions, or the native advertising inside of the system itself e.g. Start Menu ads.

    If native AI data collection and advertising is baked into all nooks and crannies of the system, the ability of users to mitigate those threats becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to completely resolve.

  • Now hear me out, do you think that might have something to do with their market share relative to ALL other cars on the road?

    When a KIA gets stolen, the owner will likely get it back, although probably a lot more worse for wear.

    Thieves using relay attacks are most likely part of, or connected to, professional auto theft groups e.g. chop shops, overseas car markets, etc.

  • ....it absolutely is illegal to provide OTC substances to children in your daycare without a signed release from each parent.

    As it's so clearly illegal, I was genuinely curious if your comment crusade was because you had a moral objection to it being illegal.....hence my asking for clarification.

    Additionally, this was an unlicensed daycare, and there might be additional restrictions in place regulating the dispensing of any substance to children, but you can look up the relevant NH regulations if you're curious.

  • That's irrelevant to my point, which was that destroying evidence in a trial with monetary damages can result in increased damages, instead of avoiding them.

    If you're still not getting it, you should reread the comment thread and to see the context for that example being used.

  • Next time, open the actual document.

    "There is also talk that Russia is working to develop low-yield nuclear weapons and/or modernizing its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, perhaps with the intent of creating a class of nuclear weapons less likely to draw a nuclear counterattack and are therefore more “usable.”

    That paper is from 2016, and those tactical nuclear weapons are now in service.

    Also, as I've already written, I don't view flooding Ukraine with Western arms as a significant risk to the escalation ladder. That is not the case for force on force conflict with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep. Which again, is laid out in their doctrine.

    To clear, I just said to start with those links. You should definitely branch out and spend a lot more time reading up, because clearly you haven't yet.

    Please, finish reading all those documents, and then read some more, and then show me all the white papers, academic articles, or think tank papers that support your position, or disprove mine.

  • Holy shit ...

    No, I'm saying flood Ukraine with Western arms because it's worth it.

    But putting in active duty NATO troops is a sure fire ticket to an uncontrollable escalation.

    I have to admit though, seeing all you keyboard strategists act like force on force conflict between NATO and Russia is no big deal, makes me believe either you're all genuine idiots, or are actually pushing a coordinated message yourselves. Most likely it's the former, but that's just a guess.

  • ....are you seriously claiming that a direct conflict with NATO forces on their borders, or within their occupied territories, wouldn't change Russia's strategic calculus in regards to the use of nuclear weapons?

    Please, tell me what base of geopolitical knowledge, or Russian military doctrine, are you basing this on?

    Because every white paper and analysis of Russian First Strike Doctrine that I've read, would seem to fly in the face of your claims. So... please put my mind at rest and show me the sources that I'm missing here.