Until someone calls your bluff, perhaps accidentally, and realizes much of the nuclear saber-rattling was just that. Of course, since it wasn't entirely a bluff, this is the easiest way to get a nuclear war going. (Get a country with nukes but limited conventional capabilities into a brinksmanship contest.)
Due Process is being denied to US citizens, who are being removed from the country without the opportunity for them or their parents to consult an attorney.
> According to a Migration Policy Institute report, the deportation system dramatically changed over the past 19 years - moving from a judicial system prior to 1996 where most people facing deportation had immigration court hearings, to a system during Obama's administration where 75 percent of people removed did not see a judge before being deported.
You have to understand that most what you read about online about this administration is not written in good faith and reported honestly. Everything is unprecedented and a constitutional crisis. Really unforgivable when basic questions in an LLM can provide you meaningful context
Can I point out that this administration has gone out of it's way to flaunt it's disregard for the law and constitutional norms? Is anyone buying that the US can't pressure El Salvador to get back someone it wants? Anyone in doubt that it's a backroom deal in defiance of due process?
There's a reason why trust in the ruling administration is so important, because otherwise the system breaks down. Any time any questions pop up about how the law is being violated, Tom Homan breaks down crying about how the real crime is how children are baking to death in the heat of the sun, that children are being raped by cartel members... like what do you even say to that? Its easy to see why people are able to commit acts of great cruelty if they've convinced themselves that it's a neccesary evil for the greater good.
And it is unprecedented for modern times and it is a constitutional crisis on an almost daily basis.
Dishonest phrasing. The children were the US citizens. Parents were in US illegally. They deported the parents and their kids along with them. Should they go into foster care instead?
First of all, that is not correct. In one of the cases one parent was also a US citizen.
Second, even if in all cases the parents were not citizens it does matter because the US citizen child's due process rights were not respected.
> They deported the parents and their kids along with them. Should they go into foster care instead?
There should be a hearing for the US citizen child to determine what to do with them. Even if both parents have to leave there may be other relatives in the US legally who would be happy to care for the child.
This comment is irrelevant unless you literally believe the person you are responding to is Barack Obama. Maybe ask an ai to write the whole comment for you next time!
I don't think Erdős would consider it all that disrespectful as his Wikipedia entry quotes 'the "ő," often (even in Erdos's own papers) by mistake or out of typographical necessity replaced by "ö,".'
How do you apply that thinking to Chinese names, especially those of people who only lived before romanization, or before pinyin? Using pinyin is no good because you get names like "Yang" instead of "Young" as well as huge dialect differences in pronunciation. Most people won't even be able to recognize the same characters written in two different places. I'd say use the language you're communicating in because communication is the purpose of writing, instead of inserting foreign symbols that nobody has any idea how to pronounce to make a political statement.
Having said that, I always copy-paste names of customers I'm talking to directly when I can't type them.
Incidentally, I try my hardest to pronounce Chinese names correctly, as I study Chinese.
You would write “Yang” and not “Young” (assuming that’s their name and they didn’t change it to “Young” after migrating), and you would leave out the pinyin vowel markers.
Since many Chinese carry a western name for the convenience of having something westerners can pronounce, that can be a safe fallback.
What I mean is there's often no way to write Chinese names for people who don't know the language while also being what their owners would used. Yang ends up being pronounced like "bang" instead of "bung" and the between spoken dialects break pinyin even further. Characters are the faithful way but completely unreadable and untypeable to most people. I'd say just use the best way to communicate instead of using confusing symbols out of respect for strangers at the expense of respect for the person you're talking to.
When I see names with strange accents like ő, I just ignore them. Better that than guessing wrong. Of course if it's a real person you have a relationship with, you'd go to a bit of effort to figure it out.
Notating checks is not even redundant; it can disambiguate which piece is to move without additional information (e.g. Rac1 and Rhc1; only one of them might give a discovered check, so Rc1+ could then be an unambiguous notation where the check is not redundant). The PGN spec is clear that SAN disambiguates legal moves and not pieces (if moving one of those rooks would put yourself in check, you should not disambiguate when you move the other one), but I don't know whether it considers the check part of the move for those purposes.
I see what you mean obviously, but neither of those moves could possibly give a discovered check, right? If the rook starts in the corner of the board, nothing can hide behind it or attack from behind it.
> Neither the appearance nor the absence of either a check or checkmating indicator is used for disambiguation purposes. This means that if two (or more) pieces of the same type can move to the same square the differences in checking status of the moves does not allieviate the need for the standard rank and file disabiguation described above. (Note that a difference in checking status for the above may occur only in the case of a discovered check.)
It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary. The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding.
Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
In short, artillery remains important, which is why US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
> It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary.
It's not disingenuous at all. It's pretty apparent if you even take a cursory look at modern American military doctrine/spending. The plan is always to park a carrier close by (maybe two), conduct an air campaign, then send in the troops. Artillery wars just chew up people which the the American public has not had an appetite for since Vietnam.
>The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding.
It think that is a caveat as big as the Pacific. Vietnam was literally 60 years ago. You don't think top brass have rethought how wars are fought since then? For context, that's 10 Presidencies since LBJ (36th).
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years.
Again, modern American doctrine has focused on the layering of power projection and troop mobility specifically to NOT fight in static positions.
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
Again caveats. Also a war with China will be fought exactly opposite to Ukraine (with missiles not artillery, and with dynamic naval fronts, not trench warfare).
> The plan is always to park a carrier close by (maybe two)
It's an open secret in military circles that aircraft carriers are useless against a peer adversary like Russia or China, which both have the ability to sink carriers and shoot down planes easily. Carriers are only good against unsophisticated terrorists.
But it is pointless to talk about a war with Russia, which would very quickly turn into nuclear Armageddon.
It funny I actually read that article earlier this month. I don't have articles to rebutt, but there are people in military circles who think diametrically to the that article (including me).
> It's an open secret in military circles that aircraft carriers are useless against a peer adversary like Russia or China, which both have the ability to sink carriers and shoot down planes easily.
This is not true. How else do you expect to fight an adversary in their home turf without a platform for air superiority? If anything, aircraft carriers would have more survivability (they move) than our supporting airbases in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines (which will almost immediately be hit with ballistic missiles at the start of a conflict). Carriers have layered missile defense. Our arguably biggest weakness in our navy is our lack of ability to underway replenish vertical launch missile cells (used for both offense and defense at sea), but there is a huge push to solve this at the moment.
I'd also challenge you to show examples of China actually shooting down a fighter jet. There's also the fact that China just doesn't have the military experience. Half of war fighting is experience (rehearsing isn't the same as active conflict), and logistics.
> Carriers are only good against unsophisticated terrorists.
This is laughably untrue.
> But it is pointless to talk about a war with Russia, which would very quickly turn into nuclear Armageddon.
No reason to think their nuclear arsenal is in any better shape than the rest of their armaments. (Or are they going to buy nukes from the Norks, too?)
Fighting static positions is what you do when your opponent is literally your neighbor occupying slightly different dirt that touches yours. Which is not the case with China and the US.
When you switch from land to water tooling your military doctrine to things like air superiority, missiles, island hoping make much more sense to me at least.
Well we certainly do agree that artillery will not be the primary weapon of choice in any naval war!
I do appreciate your point of view, but I maintain that in a lengthy land war with a near peer, missile stockpiles would run low and 4th gen fighters would be unable to contest enemy airspace. Of course, the caveat is that the US would very much like to avoid any such conflict via either diplomacy or a decisive first few weeks of combat. And the hope is that 5th gen fighters would evade air defenses. Even so, US doctrine calls for being capable of fighting prolonged land wars on multiple fronts.
> US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
God bless. Let's outperform all the adversaries combined in shell, ammunition, carrier, and fighter production. American military dominance must never be called into question even by the possibility of multi-theater war.
Atomic weapons emerged slightly before the first craft to leave the Earth’s atmosphere, but we’re still nowhere near interstellar travel. On the other hand, the difficulty of space travel is largely a function of the escape velocity, which is dependent on the gravitational pull of your planet and solar system (both of which are variable).
One issue with your claim though is that once you have interstellar flight, you certainly have weapons of mass destruction. Even crashing a coke-can sized meteor into the Earth at 1% of the speed of light would cause major destruction.
He also apparently has a heart condition that might have killed him had he not been a fitness nut. Instead, he had heart surgery and called someone in Hollywood from his hospital bed to be emotionally supportive when their movie was doing poorly which just made the guy go something like "Oh. He's hospitalized and calling me to cheer me up. It's worse than I feared!"
