Going off statistics, the vast majority of these sailors, and their families, got exactly what they voted for.
I don't want to hear from a single parent now, who didn't also speak out after their precious whittle babies murdered 175 school-girls, or the countless other civilians the USN killed during its most recent warcrime speed.
The police will always take any excuse to justify their love for unlawful searches and seizures.
That is the reason why they don't take any extra steps to confirm the information is correct, because they view it as the perfect alibi for their many crimes and constitutional violations - the AI made me do it.
If anyone bothered to read the article, it's not nearly as stupid as it sounds. That's not to say it's a good idea, just that not nearly as dumb as people are making it out to be.
It's designed specifically to handle multiple callers who are calling about existing/known incidents, as a tool to relieve human operators, and simply gather additional details, or provide information to the callers.
So while I can't say that I'm in favor of it, the actual scope of deployment is much different than what the headline would have you believe.
Putting aside all of the false positives and mission creep e.g. used on unruly 3rd graders, let's imagine a real-world scenario where a shooter comes prepared with goggles and these drones simply blind every student in their immediate vicinity.
Which really does lend credibility to the idea that he either has some Epstein-style blackmail on some influential people in Hollywood and/or he's still providing them with unsavory, or illegal, experiences.
Iran is deploying the exact same anti-air defense strategies that were developed on the battlefield of Ukraine.
That is smart, they we're not trying to not reinvent the wheel.
But it also means that the headline is misleading as it was not them who developed the strategy, or "figured" it out.
It's just a bad headline, which I was calling attention to, but it's not something I would normally devote multiple comments to, so this is my last one.
I read the article and wasn't trivializing their accomplishment.
But that has nothing to do with the editorial choices of The Intercept and the misleading nature of that headline, which is what my comment was directed at.
It's the exact same strategy that has been used by both Ukraine and Russia for years now.
The only difference is that instead of America providing Ukraine their ISR, conducting BDAs, etc., it's China and/or Russia providing those intelligence services to the Iranians.
Defeating enemy air defense is not a state secret.
It just requires a technologically capable military with good ISR and healthly munition stockpiles.
Destroy radars, launch saturation attacks, and persistence.
Some specific weapons may have better, or worse, hit rates due to their technological capabilities, or limitations, but that's not what the strategy ultimately relies on.
As someone who generally supports the decriminalization and legalization of vices, the most persuasive argument I've heard against full drug legalization was that it would open a corporate gold rush to develop the most addictive drugs possible.
Well, that's basically what we have now with legalized gambling.
I'm not a gambler, but I supported gambling legalization, and now we have a corporate gold rush to gamify life and create the most addictive forms of gambling ever seen.
I'm not saying we should recriminalize it, but there needs to be serious reform, such as banning prediction markets and prop bets.
I'd even be open to limiting what types of bets can be made online, such as only allowing parlays to be placed inside an actual brick and mortar sportsbook or casino.
Fuck you and your big Parmesan cheese propaganda.
We all know that it's shady long big parm bets propping up the entire Italian economy, and shame on you for trying to mislead small wheel investors.
If anything this just proves that my puts on cheese whiz are the correct investment vehicle for the time being.
Go long on aerosolized cheese bitches.
Any officer of the court who demands extrajudicial exceptions to jury trials, needs to be sentenced extrajudicially.
That 65% voted for President Trump.
Going off statistics, the vast majority of these sailors, and their families, got exactly what they voted for.
I don't want to hear from a single parent now, who didn't also speak out after their precious whittle babies murdered 175 school-girls, or the countless other civilians the USN killed during its most recent warcrime speed.
False positives are a feature, not a bug.
The police will always take any excuse to justify their love for unlawful searches and seizures.
That is the reason why they don't take any extra steps to confirm the information is correct, because they view it as the perfect alibi for their many crimes and constitutional violations - the AI made me do it.
If given the chance, the overwhelming majority of those sailors would happily vote for a third Trump term.
Listen and learn boys. This is 12D chess, straight from the grandmaster.
I understand recording the act turns this into something serious, but I mean come on, it's an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old, having sex.
If anyone bothered to read the article, it's not nearly as stupid as it sounds. That's not to say it's a good idea, just that not nearly as dumb as people are making it out to be.
It's designed specifically to handle multiple callers who are calling about existing/known incidents, as a tool to relieve human operators, and simply gather additional details, or provide information to the callers.
So while I can't say that I'm in favor of it, the actual scope of deployment is much different than what the headline would have you believe.
Her and Collins only come out against something if they're sure it'll pass without their support.
That means at the time of her statement, the votes had already been whipped.
And lo and behold, by the time of my comment, it has been confirmed that Cassidy will support.
Putting aside all of the false positives and mission creep e.g. used on unruly 3rd graders, let's imagine a real-world scenario where a shooter comes prepared with goggles and these drones simply blind every student in their immediate vicinity.
Who's gonna be liable for those deaths?
More importantly, he's box office poison.
Which really does lend credibility to the idea that he either has some Epstein-style blackmail on some influential people in Hollywood and/or he's still providing them with unsavory, or illegal, experiences.
You keep misunderstanding me.
Iran is deploying the exact same anti-air defense strategies that were developed on the battlefield of Ukraine.
That is smart, they we're not trying to not reinvent the wheel.
But it also means that the headline is misleading as it was not them who developed the strategy, or "figured" it out.
It's just a bad headline, which I was calling attention to, but it's not something I would normally devote multiple comments to, so this is my last one.
I read the article and wasn't trivializing their accomplishment.
But that has nothing to do with the editorial choices of The Intercept and the misleading nature of that headline, which is what my comment was directed at.
It's the exact same strategy that has been used by both Ukraine and Russia for years now.
The only difference is that instead of America providing Ukraine their ISR, conducting BDAs, etc., it's China and/or Russia providing those intelligence services to the Iranians.
I understand the changing dynamics of war unleashed in Ukraine, I'm commenting on the subject of the article you posted.
The headline makes it sound like it was some mystery that had yet to be solved, or a problem that hadn't already been figured out.
Defeating enemy air defense is not a state secret.
It just requires a technologically capable military with good ISR and healthly munition stockpiles.
Destroy radars, launch saturation attacks, and persistence.
Some specific weapons may have better, or worse, hit rates due to their technological capabilities, or limitations, but that's not what the strategy ultimately relies on.
As someone who generally supports the decriminalization and legalization of vices, the most persuasive argument I've heard against full drug legalization was that it would open a corporate gold rush to develop the most addictive drugs possible.
Well, that's basically what we have now with legalized gambling.
I'm not a gambler, but I supported gambling legalization, and now we have a corporate gold rush to gamify life and create the most addictive forms of gambling ever seen.
I'm not saying we should recriminalize it, but there needs to be serious reform, such as banning prediction markets and prop bets.
I'd even be open to limiting what types of bets can be made online, such as only allowing parlays to be placed inside an actual brick and mortar sportsbook or casino.