merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works

Posts

10

Comments

3,060

Joined

2 yr. ago

Are people in the US

Yes, go on...

aware that they are now definitely a rogue state

The question isn't your awareness of what the government is doing. It's your awareness of how the US is perceived by the rest of the world. A rogue state is "a nation that is considered very dangerous to other nations". To answer that question, you have to reference other nations views on the US.

Do you think they would have prosecuted if it had been a low level employee doing the same thing? Running their own private email server, doing government business on that server?

I think they would have, that's why I think it's important to note that they chose not to prosecute her despite it being something that would have been prosecuted for other less powerful people.

Was it as big a deal as the GOP made of it? No. But, it's still a rule that everybody else has to follow or they get charged.

Saying what is inevitable? That other countries will consider the US a rogue state?

You're one of the few people who actually understood the question. As a result, you're one of the few who actually got the right answer.

Doubt it.

What non-American news sources do you read? Do you really think that more than 50% of the US actually consults non-American news sources?

It figures it takes someone calling themselves "CanadaPlus" to actually see the actual question and answer it.

Everyone else is answering about how aware Americans are about what's happening, but the question was about whether Americans were aware of how the world perceived the US. The answer, of course, is "no, Americans have no idea because Americans consume almost no non-American media".

Note, that this isn't actually the question. It's not whether Americans are aware of what's happening, it's about whether Americans are aware of how the rest of the world perceives the US.

This is the closest anybody in the thread has actually come to answering the question. The full answer is that Americans almost never consult non-American news sources, so of course they're not aware of how they're perceived in the rest of the world.

This doesn't seem to be actually answering the question. The question was about how the US was perceived by other countries, not how Americans perceive their own government.

Interesting, but not surprising that this doesn't really answer the question. The question was about whether Americans were aware of how the US was perceived outside its borders.

I don't think that applies here. 1/3 in each group is fair for domestic matters. But, OP is asking about perceptions of the US by people in other countries.

In that case, even the 1/3 that is opposed to what's happening will contain a lot of people with no idea how the rest of the world sees the US. For example, of the 1/3 of Americans who deeply oppose what's happening, what fraction do you think actually read Le Monde or Deutsche Welle, or are even aware that they have an English-language service?

And, the 1/3 that is fully supportive of what's happening will contain a lot of people who think that this is improving how the rest of the world sees the US. Sure, some will be aware and will still be defiant in the face of how the rest of the world is reacting. But, others will be watching Fox News or Newsmax and will hear propaganda that convinces them that the rest of the world admires and respects the US more than ever for taking a decisive stand against the deep state.

So, as with anything involving something happening outside the US, I'd guess more than 50% of Americans have no idea what the rest of the world is thinking.

It's also the system administrator and SRE mindset.

Deciding not to prosecute isn't necessarily the same as deciding it wasn't criminal.

Given that Google probably trains their LLMs based on the content of people's Gmail inboxes, how long until a prompt convinces Gemini to spit out Waltz's emails verbatim?

Or, could use this profile:

• Former military officers
• Graduates of Virginia Military Academy
• Married men in their early 50s
• Men Living in Washington DC
• Fathers of teenage daughters
• ...

Then microtarget ads that will be shown only to him. I can guarantee that a guy this bad at OPSEC doesn't know how to use an ad blocker.

(And if you're a North Korean hacking group, you make sure the ad has a malicious payload that gives you control over his computer.)

Hillary wasn't prosecuted, though she probably should have been. But, she was grilled by government committees for many hours.

If Google weren't under antitrust pressure, I think that would have already happened.

In many ways, a Google owner would probably make Reddit better for a while. Google cares a lot more about the data people are generating than making the site itself profitable. They could afford to run it at a loss for years, whereas Reddit investors want to ensure they make money soon.

But, I'm glad it might not happen. Then again, who knows what will happen to Google and antitrust in the Trump admin, where bribery is now perfectly legal.

I wonder how long it will be until one of these supposed "plainclothes agents" is shot. Part of the reason that cops wear uniforms is that it make it clear to the public that when they're grabbing someone off the street it isn't a kidnapping.

What I think is more important is that Carter was sincere and he lived his values.

I don't even know what Clinton, Obama and Biden truly believed. They were so willing to compromise and work with both parties to get things done that whatever they believed didn't really matter.

Even if Carter's beliefs were on the right edge if the Democratic Party of his time, IMO it's important that they were sincerely held, and that he wasn't wiling to compromise. I think a lot of voters have been looking for that for a long time. It's why Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because she was seen as such a Washington insider. It's also why some of Trump's early supporters had previously been Bernie supporters. IMO Trump doesn't actually have any sincerely held beliefs, but you can't accuse him of compromising with the left just to get deals done.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America..."

I mean, you can stop right there. The rest is all fucked up too, but that shit's weird. How can one owe allegiance to a flag, of all things?

And, it's not "as representing the Republic for which it stands", it's "and to the Republic for which it stands". The flag is a separate thing, the second clause is about allegiance to the republic, but the first part is just about the fucking flag.

The whole purpose of those flybys is to glamorize and advertise the same planes they use to drop bombs.

In many other countries, their military acrobatics teams don't even use true military jets.

New Zealand's Black Falcons use propeller-based trainers. Japan's Blue Impulse team uses Kawasaki T-4 based trainers. Britain's Red Arrows and Finland's Midnight Hawks use BAE Hawk trainers. Australia's Roulettes use turboprop trainers. Canada's snowbirds use Canadair Tutor trainers.