Totally Human Emdash User

Firefox lets you change your search provider, and it works on both PCs and Android.

Yes, the Russian government is probably happy to share these images with the Iranian government, but my understanding is that the military units who are firing missiles are acting independently after our decapitation strike took out the Supreme Leader, which was the one to whom they had pledged their allegiance. (There is a moral here: taking out the leader does not necessarily get rid of the organization, it just means you no longer have a single person you can negotiate with to in order to get it to back down.) Thus, the people firing missiles might not actually be able to benefit from images provided by the Russian government.

The incredibly selective quote makes it sound like the imagery is being held indefinitely, but according to the article it is only being held for 4 days before becoming publicly available as normal. Furthermore, the hold does not apply to imagery inside Iran.

To quote more from the article:

“In response to the conflict in the Middle East, Planet is implementing temporary restrictions on data access within specific areas of the affected region,” Planet said in a statement emailed to Ars. “Effective immediately, all new imagery collected over the Gulf States, Iraq, Kuwait, and adjacent conflict zones will be subject to a mandatory 96-hour delay before it is made available in our archive.”

Imagery over Iran will remain available as soon as it is acquired, the company said. “This change applies to all users except authorized government users who maintain immediate access for mission-critical operations.”

A secret underground space program!

Hey, maybe Musk is even right that this will lead to the death of xAI; I do not see a downside in this.

Again, the CBP is not normally mandated from above to collect illegal tariffs on a large scale, so it not really their fault that they are not set up to immediately issue refunds at this scale. Furthermore they are not asking to be excused from issuing refunds, just for a 45 day extension to finish setting up their systems.

If anyone deserves the ire from all of this, it is Trump for creating this situation in the first place, not the CBP. Edit: Oh, and also the Supreme Court for not issuing an injection immediately on this but rather taking their sweet time and allowing the scale of the refunds needed to grow and grow.

To be clear, the CBP said that it could not immediately comply because its systems are not set up for this kind of scale, but that it hopefully should be when new systems are in place at the end of April that allow it to consolidate and more efficiently process refund requests. (Keep in mind that the CBP does not get to decide what the tariffs are, it only administers them, and being mandated to collect illegal tariffs on such a large scale is pretty unprecedented.)

In fairness, at some point we all have to learn the hard way that no amount of evidence will convince some people to change their mind about their deeply held beliefs.

I like my moons like I like my plans: in concept form only.

If am not trans, may I still have a chainsaw hand, or would that be disrespectful to the trans community?

I think that if you do not believe in your own argument strongly enough to let it stand on its own without adding bizarre criticisms of my writing style, then it is really not worth me continuing to engage.  Have a good day!  😉

Obviously war is bad, which is why the idea that was actually being considered was actually “maybe mass death and untold suffering is not the worst thing, if it buys peace and prosperity for subsequent generations by building a civilization of greater scale”. As @inputzero@lemmy.world says below, one’s thoughts on this probably depends on exactly how one feels about utilitarianism.

And… is the best attack you could come up with that I “type like a redditor”? Really?

Out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because it neither commented on any of the wars ongoing in 2014 nor proposed any new ones.

Also, newspapers generally have a designated opinion section, and this was in that section, so it was not treated the same as factual reporting in the manner you are concerned about.

There was still some diversity of viewpoints, though it was much narrower. Still, I agree it got significantly worse, which is why I stopped subscribing to it. (I stuck around for longer than many because the reporting outside the opinion page was pretty good and I wanted to support that, but it eventually became too much for me.)

Also, out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because none of the points you seem to think that it makes come close to what it actually argues.

That was not how I read the article at all. What it is arguing is essentially that people benefit from the presence of order, especially when it includes larger numbers of people, but that historically such order only tends to come about through warfare. By all means disagree with this—though you might consider reading the article if you haven’t so that you are responding to its actual points—but it has nothing to do with people doing better merely because they have survived the war.

So newspapers should never publish any opinions that have any commentary on warfare?

It is not always the case that the side you disagree with is just a bunch of Nazis, and furthermore sometimes it is you who are wrong. That is why it is important not to be too zealous in shutting out everyone you disagree with on any issue.

Nonetheless, that does not mean that everyone should be platformed, and I am not a fan of some of the choices that the Washington Post has made in this regard, which is why I am no longer a subscriber. However, I did not think that this particular article was that bad, because it is essentially just saying that order results in far greater peace and prosperity than no order, especially when it incorporates increasingly large scales of people, but that it unfortunately requires violence to bring this about. One can very reasonably disagree, but one needs to do more than what many have done, which is to just read the title, assume that one knows what the article was arguing, and then criticize it based on that assumption.

Keep in mind that this is a guest opinion, which means it is not intended to reflect the official opinion of the Washington Post—in fact, it might be the opposite, but published anyway in order to provide a diversity of viewpoints. (Personally, I do not like everyone they have chosen to platform, but it is not unreasonable for them to want to err on the side of listening to what the other side has to say to avoid creating an echo chamber.)

I will do one better and provide a link to an archived copy of the article so you all can read it for yourselves!

Of course it is accurate—the baby just opens the door at the front of the demon and steps out, easy-peasy!

(Honestly, the hard part is getting the baby back in afterward!)