Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Fucking insomnia.

[Krenn]

Why do we even have open threads, anyway? Is anyone actually doing anything with all these comments?

[AmosArch]

So instead of arguing endlessly about the politics of the thread title we can endlessly argue about the politics of whatever comes to mind.

[NvEric]

Yes. It's part of a study. A study of the people here.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
Who are you ?
What do you want ?

[Frank Drackman]

I Wanna Rock!!!! (Power Chord)

[ducksalad]

Same reason as Midnight Basketball.

[Davy C]

It's so people don't feel the need to post off-topic stuff on other posts, I think.

Is anyone actually doing anything with all these comments?

I assume they do the exact same thing with these comments that they do with the comments on any other thread.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump is as bad at being CIC as at everything else—except where he excels,
at self-promotion.

The aircraft carrier Gerald Ford is the premier asset of America's surface navy. It may be nearly invulnerable, except against missile attack, or undersea attack by advanced submarines. Which means it is likely safe in the Caribbean. Which is where Trump inexplicably wants it, so Trump can play-act early 20th century style gun boat diplomacy.

But it remains irresponsible to risk an asset as expensive and valuable as that one
for . . . nothing substantive at all. If Trump values naval assets so slightly, that makes a case to get rid of some of them. The right carrier for the intimidate-South America mission would have been whichever one is least useful otherwise.

Ukraine has shown the world how to do asymmetric warfare against a major navy. The technology of naval drones is new, and likely a candidate for surprising improvements. There is a considerable roster of nations which might enjoy an opportunity to assist Venezuela in a project to inflict a crushing embarrassment on the American Navy. To achieve that, they would not have to sink the Gerald Ford. Even slight damage to the carrier would be major damage to the prestige of the U.S. navy.

The Gerald Ford ought not be in the role of a demo target for some kind of surprise, while America can gain nothing from using it that way. Of course I get that the scenario I sketch is highly unlikely. The point is that the unlikely consequence would be a high-stakes loss, against nothing to gain. Only heedless stupidity makes bets like that.

[Frank Drackman]

With Palestine's best turning New York and LA into Baghdad on the Hudson, the Boat's probably safer on the High Seas than in port.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right lathrop, the fabulist projection you wrote isn't happening. The Gerald Ford will be Ok in the Gulf of America.

OTOH, narco-traffickers will have very bad days. Terminally bad.

[Krayt]

Newt Gingrich wrote a book that opens where the US navy lost a bunch of ships by small suicide boats and rafts sidling up next and blowing up. These were all human operated.

I'm sure the policy is to not allow that anymore, but hundreds of robos? Of course, they'd have to come from somewhere, and complete loss of your cushy palace life isn't really part of a business model.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the swarm strategy has been around since Hannibal. Thanks for the reminder.

[Krayt]

If so, the US navy in his book did not remember it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Aegis Destroyer can effectively deal with a swarm of small boats if they are all coming from the same general direction.

[Krayt]

Well iirc in the book they were not doing a rapid overwhelming attack swarm, but just a bunch of fishermen moseying up, drifting lazily closer, then boom boom boom x dozens of kamikazi, per ship. Nothing threatening so no defense attempted.

You have to realize a problem is underway, first, otherwise all the tech and skills in the world won't help. The whole point I believe was to be a 9/11 type of attack, that can only succeed once, the first time you try it.

I thing the government even put out a call to spy, sci fi, other types of authors to prognosticate crazy things and send the ideas in. I wonder what that list looks like.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You can (theoretically) shield the electronics of an individual drone against any level of EMP, but that precludes them being able to communicate with each other, likely even being able to avoid colliding with each other.

Any form of electromagnetic radiation can be directed, just like light can be (and light is electromagnetic radiation).

Now if I, an Education Major, can figure how those two facts could be used to develop a defense weapon against drone swarms, my guess is that our best and brightest engineers can do so as well...

Maybe the USS Ford has new systems they wish to test in real life.

[Commenter_XY]

A question for trial lawyers.

Do you exercise peremptory challenges to toss lawyers from a jury pool?

How does having a lawyer on the jury change the jury deliberation?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm more for tossing them into an actual pool.
Preferably from a tall building and the pool has sharks with friggin laser beams strapped to their heads.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How does having a lawyer on the jury change the jury deliberation?"

They have to deliberate with their wallets in their socks?

[Commenter_XY]

Can the police force you to input a phone code to unlock your phone during a traffic stop?

If the answer is 'No, they cannot', then what is the best way to decline w/o antagonizing the LEO?

Bonus question: What is the best way to decline a search of your car, if asked by an LEO during a traffic stop?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just say no?

[Frank Drackman]

Pretend you don't speak Engrish

[Josh R]

Sounds like a question for Orin Kerr.

[ducksalad]

Can the police force you to input a phone code to unlock your phone during a traffic stop?

Not if they don't know the phone exists. Rule #1 - if you need to have or do anything on your phone that you wouldn't gladly show to a roomful of elementary school children, then you need to have TWO phones. One under the seat and one to show people.

If the answer is 'No, they cannot', then what is the best way to decline w/o antagonizing the LEO?

There is no way. A plain "No sir, I would prefer not to" will antagonize the officer greatly but will not justify the taser or truncheon, and since you are doing passive resistance that's about the best you can hope for.

What is the best way to decline a search of your car, if asked by an LEO during a traffic stop?

If you're intention is to assert - but not actually get - your rights, see above and wait 10 minutes for the probable cause dog to show up.
After the dog alerts, which it will, expect the search to be intentionally thorough and lengthy.

If you are innocent and just don't want spend a lot of time having your car searched, then your best bet is to shrug and say "Sure, OK". Not eagerly, just resignedly as if McDonalds told you to go wait at the extra window. There's a decent chance the officer will decide not to take your offer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remove battery from second phone.
At least turn it off -- but ideally remove battery.

Otherwise there are all kinds of ways to identify the second phone by its transmissions. Most can't use it -- it's an encrypted digital signal -- but you can still pick it up as noise.

[ducksalad]

You are absolutely correct if they're really out to get you. But XY just needed to get through that traffic stop.

I'm surprised he was able to text his question that quick. Must have done it before pulling over.

[Commenter_XY]

Heh

[Commenter_XY]

Ran across an article discussing 'religiosity'.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/697676/drop-religiosity-among-largest-world.aspx

Is the decline of religiosity partly responsible for the decline in American society? Or is it (religiosity decline) a byproduct of social decline? To me, a decline of religiosity will necessarily lead to societal decline; and, a decline in religiosity invariably precedes social decline.

[Mr. Bumble]

Chicken? Egg?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I don't believe so Mr. Bumble. One invariably precedes the other.

The decline of religiosity is akin to the canary in the coal mine.

(glad you got some sleep)

[Drewski]

So the Soviet Union fell due to a decline in religiosity? Anyway you make a mockery of your own religion, so it's laughable that you worry that others are straying.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would seem to be true, since the religion of the Soviet Union was the state.

[Krychek_2]

I don't believe in gods, but I do believe that religion has served as a cohesive social force. I would like to see it replaced with something that acts as a cohesive social force without the baggage and without teaching mythology; the question is what. I really don't see anything rising up to take its place. And that, I think, is the problem: Not that religion is on the way out, but that its departure is leaving a vacuum that needs to be filled with something else.

I just got back from Taiwan where, I learned, society is in the process of abandoning Buddhism (which until fairly recently had been a central part of the national identity) in favor of atheism. The young people have largely abandoning it, and the evolution to an atheistic society is happening before our very eyes. Everyone understands that as a result, a generation from now the island is going to be very different from what it is now, but nobody is quite sure what that will look like (with, of course, a possible Chinese invasion being a wild card).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Religion entails many things and need not include "mythology" as that term generally is defined.

[Randal]

No, I think it does, just as a matter of definitions.

There are replacements for religion that don't involve supernatural mythology, but they're not religions, they're substitutes. Like humanism or whatever.

(Ironically, atheism could be considered a religion by this definition, since it depends on there being a supernatural mythology to affirmatively reject. This is why self-identified atheists are assholes.)

[Krychek_2]

"(Ironically, atheism could be considered a religion by this definition, since it depends on there being a supernatural mythology to affirmatively reject. This is why self-identified atheists are assholes.)"

Would the same argument apply to palm reading, phrenology, astrology, and anything else someone might not believe in? Does a lack of belief in weather predictions by groundhogs on February 2 make one an asshole since it relies on a mythology to reject? Or can one simply say, there's no evidence for it so I don't believe it, without being an asshole?

[Randal]

If you self-identify as an anti-astrologist, then yes. It's fine not to believe in something. It's quite different to make it a part of your own personal identity.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's the difference?

[Randal]

Assholicism.

[Krychek_2]

In this context, the difference between God and astrology is that God has more adherents and those adherents have greater political power. We do not have organized astrologers demanding that astrology be taught as science in the public schools. We do not have astrologers demanding that governmental bodies open their meetings with astrological readings the way theists demand that such meetings be opened with prayer. We don't have a situation in which astrology has the stranglehold on government policy the way religion does in large sections of the country. And if we did, I'll bet you would see a whole lot of people starting to self-identify as anti-astrology.

If and when religion loses political power, you'll probably see a whole lot fewer people self identify as atheists. Under current circumstances, an organized movement of unbelievers is self-defense.

[Randal]

Oh I get all that. But defining yourself as being against whatever it is that other people think is still an asshole move.

The best defense is a good offense. Define yourself in terms of what you believe, and others will follow.

[Krychek_2]

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you've been paying attention to how these discussions typically go. When someone points out the damage religion does, the response from theists is typically, "Yeah, well, atheism gave us Joseph Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot (and occasionally they throw in Hitler even though Hitler was actually Catholic).

Which is pure nonsense; a Russia or China run by *libertarian* atheists would have looked very different from a Russia or China run by *communist* atheists. It was their communism, not their atheism, that created those monstrous regimes. (And I suspect Stalin didn't believe in astrology either.)

So it's not even a question of how *I* define myself. It's that theists, whose primary assumption is that their god is at the center of everything, have successfully framed the discussion in terms of their deity.

I actually agree with you that it doesn't make much sense to define people in terms of what they don't believe, but you'll have to take that up with the theists. In the meantime, theism permeates so much of the public square that that's how I'm going to end up defined, so I'm going to run with it.

[Randal]

You just said that you're willingly allowing yourself to get baited into an identity that you agree is nonsensical.

Stop!

Just try saying "I'm not religious" instead of "I'm an atheist" for a week and see how it sits.

[Krychek_2]

Maybe I shouldn't have been baited into caring what you think about how I self identify.

[Jmaie]

"Or can one simply say, there's no evidence for it so I don't believe it, without being an asshole?"

One certainly can, and I suspect most do. However there are some who can't and are very noisy about it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I would like to see it replaced with something that acts as a cohesive social force without the baggage and without teaching mythology..."

What if (hypothetically speaking) America's monotheistic faiths (Christinaity, Judaism and to some extent Mormonism and Islam) were replaced with an ideological system of hyper-individualism enforced by law against people who are "individualistic" in the wrong way? Would that be an adequate replacement?

[ducksalad]

This hypothetically hypothetical religion you're talking about is, to some extent, like the Shakers. I think it will self-extinguish after a few generations since natural reproduction isn't high on its list of religious obligations.

[Randal]

Natural reproduction? You seem to have forgotten about evangelizing. It's something that we, being right and good, excel at.

[ducksalad]

Did some research after your comment. Turns out the Shakers, through evangelizing, did manage to hang on longer than I thought. Started up in 1747, peaked in 1850s at several thousand, and apparently there are still three of them left.

Based on that I give you 200 years but the last 100 will be a few holdouts performing for tourists.

"Mom, what's that old man with the green hair doing?"
(Mom looks at brochure)
"They call that a downtwinkle."

[SRG2]

To me a decline of religiosity will necessarily lead to societal decline

Ah yes, let's restore the good old days of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

If you had actually wanted to make your point rather than merely asserting it, you'd have looked for actual evidence - e.g., comparing crime rates across states to see whether the more religious states in the US had less crime than the less religious ones.

[Krychek_2]

I would love to see empirical data on whether being religious has any correlation to being a decent human being. Take 100 randomly chosen atheists and 100 randomly chosen religious people; would you find a higher percentage of good people in one group or the other?

Of course, this would be an impossible study to do since we would need an objective and objectively measurable definition of "good person". But assuming we could objectively define and objectively measure goodness, would religiosity have any bearing on the results?

My guess is it would not; that saints and scoundrels would be found in about equal numbers in the two groups, but of course that's just my non-scientific speculation. Objective data sure would be interesting though.

[Sarcastr0]

I think of faith like a social technology - it can be harnessed to allow a society or an individual to do stuff they otherwise couldn't do. But it doesn't make a society or person *want* to do things otherwise not in their nature.

In an individual, it can act to salve existing bad emotions to be less painful, or spur good ones towards more action.

In a society it can create a strong sense of solidarity and identity, for good or for ill.

It's kind of fascinating how you get far right posters here both complaining about our loss of faith as creating an avenue to secular evil, and decrying liberal ideals as a religiously adhered to. Sometimes the same people talking about both.

Beyond being mutually contradictory, both are category errors of different types.

[Randal]

I think you'd find among the non-religious more people who have been good all along.

Among the religious you'd find people with bad pasts who had turned to religion to repent and try to be better.

Some people need religion and some don't. It should neither be forced upon those who don't need it nor denied to those who do.

Maybe a decline in religiosity just means less people feel like they need it in order to be good people. That would be nice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Crusades and the Inquisition"

1000 and 500 years ago in Europe. I think we could restore 1945 [for example] religiosity in the US and be ok.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course no mention of Islam and their ongoing moves to establish a world wide caliphate since 632 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

[Bob from Ohio]

Only Christians did bad things in the name of religion!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bob -- Look into the Great Awakening of the 1730s & 1740s -- it led to the American Revolution.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That is an argument I've never heard before. Can you elucidate, or cite an article making that claim?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I hope you have the time and inclination to give me a reply to my non-rhetorical question. I can't imagine how one could've led to the other, and was looking forward to the theory.

[Life of Brian]

Did you try your favorite search engine? I got a page full of articles discussing the relationship between the two. Here are the first 3:

https://www.americanrevolution.org/the-great-awakening/

https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/08/great-awakening-american-revolution/

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/first-great-awakening

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thanks for the links to the articles.
Certainly interesting. There are, like Walt Whitman, and Chuck, "multitudes" in the run-up to the Revolution.
Dr. Ed is nuts and has a cartoonish understanding of Colonial history.
Just, constantly wrong on every easily verified fact.
But I grew up going to all these hallowed sites on endless field trips, listening to people that I thought later in life were people I should've paid more attention to. Now older, my brother, 2 friends and I read all we can about our city's history and eagerly show visitors interesting historical sites.
I'm not an historian but I think I've done about of half of Gladwell's 10,000 hours.
Yes, I've read almost all the authors Damon spouts off about in Good Will Hunting.
I do not buy for a second Dr. Ed's theory. That is just not the story here.
And Dr. Ed isn't from here.
And I don't have to tell you he is off his rocker, here, and always.

[Krychek_2]

At this moment, in the Middle East, gallons of human blood are being spilled because Jews and Muslims are both equally convinced that God gave that land to them. We don't have to go back to the Inquisition; to see the damage being done by religion just watch the evening news.

[David Nieporent]

There are people on each side that believe that, yes — but that's not the driver of the conflict.

[Krychek_2]

David, it is true that without religion, Jews and Arabs would still not like each other, but without religion reasonable people could probably settle it.

I just finished reading Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Montefiore, which I highly recommend. It is a 600 page history of Jerusalem going back 3000 years, all the way back to King David. And it is mostly a depressing recitation of how much misery religion has brought to the region for most of that time. The hostility between Christians, Jews and Muslims has done nothing but produce violence and bloodshed. That unfortunate city would have unquestionably been better off without religion, and it's not even a close call.

[Josh R]

To me, a decline of religiosity will necessarily lead to societal decline.

I don't see why. To the contrary, religiosity is likely reversely correlated with logical reasoning, the latter being a cornerstone of a virtuous society.

[William of Brooklyn]

I think that's precisely wrong. By whatever name it goes, there needs to be -- at a minimum -- a civic "faith," which is to say "that which binds us together" (i.e. re ligare). Logical reasoning alone leaves us without love, wisdom, temperance, kinship, belonging, and many other essential qualities of truly civilized life. And it most emphatically could never support the proposition that "all men are created equal."

[Sarcastr0]

"love, wisdom, temperance, kinship, belonging" are all great things. They are not coterminous with faith or religiosity, though.

I say that as someone of faith.

[Randal]

Logical reasoning alone leaves us without love, wisdom, temperance, kinship, belonging, and many other essential qualities...

No it doesn't.

And it most emphatically could never support the proposition that "all men are created equal."

This makes you sound like a wanna-be bigot. In any case, you certainly can reach the conclusion, logically, that society ought consider all men to be created equal.

(I think an even stronger case could be made by diggin into what's meant by "equal." If you mean "of equal inherent capability" it's obviously false, religious or not. If you mean "of equal claim to natural rights," I think that's probably more true via logic than via religion. Not all religions even hold that principle. The ones that do, like Christianity, base it on the purported whims of a Creator, which makes it subjective. A logical basis is objective and stronger.)

[ducksalad]

OK, Randal, I'll take you up on this one:

you certainly can reach the conclusion, logically, that society ought consider all men to be created equal.

Let's see you do that with zero starting premises other than physical facts. I won't need any heavy analysis to show you the flaw. You'll start using the verb "is" and then at sometime switch to using the word "ought" pr "should". Right there exactly, between the last "is" and the first "ought" or "should", is where you snuck in some premise that you accept without proof and without logic. Some premise that you took on faith alone, using the word in the non-religious sense.

Maybe snuck in is too harsh. That starting premise may have been so deeply seated early in life that you can't imagine it being questioned.

I think that's what William is getting at. Have you ever met a deeply committed all-species anti-natalist? Someone who doesn't accept that it's better for the earth to have life on it than to be a barren airless sphere. Someone who doesn't even accept that it's better for there to be something rather than nothing. Try proving anything normative to that person.

I'm not saying we need mythical beings or afterlife or miracle stories. We do need a few starting premises that we firmly believe without proof.

[Randal]

No, it's not any kind of trick. The premise is important. But you can have premises in logic. In fact, you can't really have logic without premises. Premises are what logic operates over.

So if you take as a premise that people want to live long, happy, and fulfilling lives, you can get from there to equal rights.

Feel free to deny the premise, but that seems stupid to me. Logic accepts observations. Logic doesn't deny nature.

[ducksalad]

people want to live long, happy, and fulfilling lives

That's a factual observation. As I predicted you left unstated your normative premise, which you take on faith:

"People should be allowed to get what they want" (perhaps with some limitations).

This is why the DoI declares some things "self-evident". Which is the same as saying they are articles of faith. The authors were educated men and know it can't be logic all the way down.

And BTW, it's clear from the behavior of many people that your premise is not at all baked into the structure of our brains. It sticks best if taught, at a young age, and without logical proof since there is no logical proof. Parents need to get their kids to accept it on faith, in the same way they do a religion.

Short version: You've announced your faith. The rest of us can see that it's a faith and not a fact of nature.

[Randal]

You're trying the trick of wielding the word "faith" like it's somehow in opposition to logic and belongs only to the realm of religion.

You don't need religion to take something like your "people should be allowed to get what they want" as a premise. Call it "taking it on faith" if you want -- it's a pretty good way of defining what a "premise" even is -- but it doesn't change anything. It's still just logic.

Like I said, there's no logic without premises. If premises imply faith, then logically, there's no logic without faith.

[ducksalad]

PS Forgot to say, although it's faith, it's not at all a bad faith. Please carry on.

[Josh R]

I'm not arguing we only need logical reasoning. Instead, I am arguing we at least solid, sound logical reasoning, and that religiosity (as far too often practiced) undermines it.

[bernard11]

Is the decline of religiosity partly responsible for the decline in American society?

What decline?

[Commenter_XY]

Open your eyes.

[bernard11]

Open your eyes.

To what? My eyes are open and I don't see this great decline. And when I ask you to point it out you refuse.

You accuse me of not seeing "the decline in American society.

But you don't see the things wrong with American society in the past. It's hardly necessary to demonize the country to realize that there are many unsavory things in its history - as there are in the past of probably all countries.

When it comes to discussing historical trends, don't be Miniver Cheevy.

[bernard11]

No response, XY?

[Randal]

I feel like we're proving The Matrix true.

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost.

Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.

Objectively, American society is better than ever. But that just means everyone's got enough free time to wallow in fake grievances, like pet-eating immigrants or whatever MAGA decides to angerbate themselves with today.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why does friend of Epstein Stacey Plaskett have a seat (non-voting or otherwise) in the US House of Representatives, "representing" the US Virgin Islands (population 87,000)?

[Krayt]

I assume she was voted in, which means purification through voter ponderation of pros and cons.

I hear there's a lot of that going on lately.

[Mr. Bumble]

Possibly poorly worded. Why does the seat exist along with those of the five other non-voting members?

[Drewski]

If only Congress had written a long-ass preamble explaining its motivations. If only. . .

[ducksalad]

You know that technically the Speaker does not have to be one of the actual Representatives. Just saying.

[Longtobefree]

Which is the way to Trump's third term.
The republican ticket wins, along with the house majority.
The house appoint Trump as speaker.
The president and vice-president resign, and BINGO! president Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

Vance is president, he's going to just resign. Makes sense!

Rubio is VP, becomes president, he's going to just resign. Makes sense!

[ducksalad]

In the unlikely event that Trump really did try it, the assumption is that it would be done very openly. He'd campaign for it, all the signs and advertisements would be about him, the RNC would invite him to the debates, and during the primaries some lightweight would explicitly run as the official Trump stand-in, even to the extent of putting it in their name on the ballot: 'John Stand-In Smith'. Saturation level advertisement and news coverage so that every voter understands the plan.

If he won the voters and Congress would expect the resignation, and the stand-in would know that if he tried to renege his political life expectancy, and maybe even his actual life expectancy, would be measured in weeks.

But yeah, none of this is going to happen.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Same problem. John stand-in Smith be like, you know, I've been thinking...

Maybe if the was someone like Melania. But still a risk.

[ducksalad]

OK, how about this. Start a media campaign to get 50,000 MAGA loyalists to do two simple things (in return for an autographed red hat and complimentary drinks for life at any Trump Resort).

1. File campaign papers with the FEC with Trump as their official campaign manager.
2. Make a living will with Trump as the executor.

By the time 2028 rolls around, just on the statistics there'll be a few dozen (at least) vegged out after a stroke, motorcycle accident, brain cancer, etc. Trump will have the legal authority to honor two of them by putting their names on the ballot and pulling the plug after they get "sworn in" by James Ho or Aileen Cannon.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There you go. The first realistic idea I've heard on the subject.

[ducksalad]

.

[Commenter_XY]

Apparently, Rep Plaskett was a regular communicant with Epstein. How nice.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and took campaign contributions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Epstein texted with House Democrat during Cohen hearing, documents show

"The newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate show that the convicted sex offender texted with a Democratic member of Congress, Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, during a congressional hearing with Michael Cohen, and that those text messages may have influenced the congresswoman’s questions of Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer."

Her identity had been redacted, but by comparing the texts to questions asked and on camera behavior, they were able to identify that she was the one he was communicating with.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Are you trying to imply that receiving a text from Epstein somehow implicates misbehavior by the recipient? What is your point?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm trying to SAY, not imply, that Democrats actually have more connection to Epstein than Trump does. And a connection AFTER he was a known sex offender.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's possible, I suppose. So what?

[Sarcastr0]

First, Trump is a different category than 'The Democrats.'

Second, you're taking one e-mail and deciding it's significant and generalizable, and many others and deciding they are not significant.

It's subjective vibes and differential standards, your specialty. Your metric of 'more connection' is on it's face subjective.

Hard to argue against your vibes, but I will say that so far while that's playing well in your head the populous seems somewhat less sold.

[bernard11]

And that, even if it's true, does nothing to absolve Republicans, up to and including Trump.

Look, unlike Trump, Johnson, and a seemingly shrinking number of Republicans, I'd like the full story to come out, the sooner the better.

Your opinion?

[JohnSmith97]

Only a true believer would have no issue with a (D) delegate getting real time coaching from Epstein during a house hearing.

I'm sure it is somehow all Trump's fault.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Plaskett was a regular communicant with Epstein."

The only adult woman to get in bed with him in decades!

[SRG2]

Cultists trying desperately to tie Epstein to Democrats. And it's true, particularly as far as Trump is concerned.

And of course the reason that the GOP are so keen to release all the Epstein files is because they only implicate Democrats, right?

You lot are such fucking cretins.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Mr. Fuckwit.

[Sarcastr0]

https://imgur.com/just-push-button-already-XI5Kjpj

[SRG2]

Funny thing is, there's no evidence that Clinton was ever on Epstein's island, though I will bet that most cultists think otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

They got some other Congressional Dem no one has heard of and are trying to jump that up into a thing.

They just don't care what Trump did; it's all reflexively defending him. And they think Dems are as reflexive as they are so they try these weak-ass hypocricy pushes and don't get that Dems don't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They just don't care what Trump did;"

He didn't DO anything bad.

He hung around with some rich dude like dozens of prominent figures. Cut him off two decades ago.

Its all performance outrage from your side.

[Sarcastr0]

‘Trump knew about the girls.’

[Riva]

That's probably why President Trump threw his ass out of Mar-a-Lago.

[Bob from Ohio]

‘Trump knew about the girls.’

That's it? A vague self-serving statement.

What exactly did Trump know, sherlock? Be specific.

Still nothing Trump DID in any event.

[Sarcastr0]

Explain harder.

[Bob from Ohio]

You got nothing.

Performative outrage.

[Estragon]

“… cynicism is a form of naïveté.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

How do you know what Trump did or didn't do?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop..."

So he knew they were poaching spa attendants. Big whoop.

I can't believe you're still fucking that underage girl chicken, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course!

I'm surprised you're preemptively apologizing for Trump as though you're sure someone of his caliber would never condone anything skeezy with underaged girls.

Actually, I'm not. I was shocked when you went full Beria on some judges. And when you accused me of being pro rape.

Since then I've not had very high hopes for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm sure he's doing all sorts of things with underage girls in your head, Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

So you read condone, but decided to argue against a different thesis.

Lame.

[Estragon]

“Big whoop”

Well given that Don’s currently operative story is that he told Epstein not to “do it again” after him and Maxwell grabbed Guiffre it does appear that Don did indeed give a whoop.

And if it wasn’t a big deal, why did the father of the second girl go apeshit?

https://pagesix.com/2007/10/15/sex-case-victims-lining-up/

[David Nieporent]

He didn't DO anything bad.

I reiterate: if he didn't do anything bad, why has he been so desperate to keep Epstein documents secret?

[Michael P]

Perhaps he knew that there were emails where Epstein lied or made misleading statements, and he could foresee that garbage people would try to make him look bad based on those emails.

Now it's your turn.

[Josh R]

There is non-criminal embarrassing stuff in the files that Trump doesn't want to see the light of day.

[Commenter_XY]

I could see this being the case.

[wvattorney13]

That's my thought. It is either Trump or a bunch of other famous and semi-famous people who will be exposed for adultery, drug use, or other debauchery that will cause some serious marital and other problems that are not related to any sexual abuse allegations.

[David Nieporent]

It is either Trump or a bunch of other famous and semi-famous people who will be exposed for adultery, drug use, or other debauchery that will cause some serious marital and other problems that are not related to any sexual abuse allegations.

Number of people not named Donald Trump who Donald Trump cares about: 0. (Unless they're paying him to protect them, I guess.)

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps he knew that there were emails where Epstein lied or made misleading statements,

How could he possibly know that?

[JohnSmith97]

You mean like the (D) house leadership blocking UC to release everything now?

Or do you mean that 20k emails are not enough, but the 2 or 3 that democrats altered are?

After all, it is hard to keep track of the (D) party whining now, when they could of released "all of them" years ago. Guess it just wasn't a priority then to find all the dirt possible on a guy everyone knew was running again.

You knew the lawfare didn't work, kicking him off the ballot didn't work, and replacing your candidate wasn't going well.. but you really expect us to believe that the (D) party would sit on the ultimate october surprise drop?

It is like Occam's razor doesn't exist in your alternate universe.

[Sarcastr0]

This is all the Dems fault?

Good luck shoveling that…

[Josh R]

Yes, the Democrats didn't care about the files until Trump was back in the White House. So, we can discount the sincerity of their newfound interest.

But, the hardcore MAGA base did. And, many still do. Trump's problem is that base expected release of the files to expose corrupt elites. And now Trump is acted like on of those elites.

[Riva]

"Cultists" are not trying to tie Epstein to Democrats. Epstein himself tied Democrats to Epstein. And Democrats are desperately trying to tie Epstein to President Trump. Hat tip John Hinderaker, powerlineblog.com:

Jeffrey Epstein was a Democrat, and his friends and associates were overwhelmingly Democrats. He was prominent in academic circles, and was an insider at both Harvard and MIT. The only politician with whom he is known to have had a relatively significant relationship was Bill Clinton

Yet, the Democrats, in their ceaseless search for issues to distract from their own performance in office, have tried to link Epstein to President Trump. Last week, the House Oversight Committee cooperated by releasing 20,000 Epstein emails. Democrats greeted the release joyfully, only to find that out of 20,000 there are zero emails from Donald Trump, and zero emails to Donald Trump. Epstein name-dropped Trump, as he did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, except that in Trump’s case he was mostly expressing antagonism.

And it turns out that in 2019, after Epstein was a convicted sex offender, Epstein texted a Democratic member of Congress in the middle of a hearing, advising her on ways the Democrats could "get" President Trump. Of course it didn’t work, because Epstein knew nothing about Trump that was of use.

The point is that Epstein hated Donald Trump, probably because Trump had told him, years before, never to darken the door of Mar-a-Lago again. So the Democrats’ glee over the 20,000 emails comes down to this: Epstein had no relationship with President Trump, and hated him.

Now President Trump has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Epstein’s relationships with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers–who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island–LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Epstein’s banks. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that DOJ will do so. The New York Times is outraged, of course...

[Josh R]

If you are right, why hasn't Trump released the files?

[Riva]

You have 20,000 emails. Conclusion from 20,000 emails: Epstein had no relationship with President Trump, and hated him. On the other hand, voluminous evidence links democrats directly with Epstein. But still Democrats desperately attempt to distract from their lack of any policies any sane voter would support, counting only on the stupidity and gullibility of their voters and a compliant media.

If the Russian collusion fraud is anything to go by, their instincts, as reprehensible as they are, may be right on their assessment of their miserable base and the worthless media. But given the Democrats history with Epstein, I suspect that they will end up regrettting their obsession.

[Josh R]

20,000 emails aren't the complete files.

[Riva]

If you’d like further info, seek it out from Bill Clinton, Larry Summers–who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island–LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and all the other Democrat sleaze associated with Epstein.

[Josh R]

Clinton doesn't have the files. Trump does.

[David Nieporent]

Bot again just programmed to repeat the same (false) talking points over and over rather than substantively engaging in conversation.

[David Nieporent]

who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island

Bill Clinton did not visit Epstein's island.

[Riva]

Because Clinton denies it? Worth repeating since crazy Dave is not the sharpest asshole in the shed. Clinton is not famous for his honesty, under oath or otherwise asshole. But I'm sure he was working hard on all those trips on Epstein's private jet, just not for charity.

[David Nieporent]

No, not because Clinton denies it. Because there are records, and he isn't in them.

[Riva]

Not actually representative of the truth asshole, like just about everything you post. There are statements from multiple parties that support the claim that Clinton visited the island.

And, asshole, your newfound interest in records strangely ignores that the 20,000 emails show that President Trump had no relationship with Epstein and that Epstein hated President Trump. Epstein did not hate Clinton, Larry Summers–who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island–LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and many other Democrat scumbags.

[David Nieporent]

1) There are no such statements.
2) Wait, you're telling me that a small subset of documents released by Republicans do not incriminate Trump? What are the odds of that?
3) Clinton never visited Epstein's island.

[Riva]

1) a lie
2) I guess you’re telling me that a small subset of evidence does not incriminate Clinton? What are the odds of that?
3) Clinton enjoyed many flights on Epstein’s private jet. A visit or visits to the island is entirely consistent with this lech’s pattern of behavior and substantiated by evidence.
4) you’re a gaslighting asshole

[David Nieporent]

1) Yes, you did.
2) Low, if there was anything to incriminate him; you still aren't grasping who selected and released this subset of documents.
3) Yes, Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane. You understand that there are records of who was on the plane and where the plane went, right?

[Sarcastr0]

https://media.tenor.com/fVMnfH-5moAAAAAM/the-simpsons-stop.gif

[Riva]

Asshole still pretends the volume of evidence linking Clinton and Epstein doesn’t exist. And fails to appreciate that the 20,000 emails show Epstein had no relationship with President Trump, and that Epstein hated him, regardless who released them.

And, by the way, House Democrats were whining for the release of this material. Be careful what you wish for asshole.

[Mr. Bumble]

They aren't his to release?

[Riva]

Democrats never let facts and the law intrude on their thinking. You can't promote a good fraud if you're concerned about facts and the law. Ask Hillary and the Steele "dossier." And then run it by 51 corrupt intel hacks.

[Josh R]

They are the DOJs and Trump controls the DOJ.

[Riva]

They’re a little busy now investigating Bill Clinton, Larry Summers–who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island–LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Epstein’s bank.

[Josh R]

Are they too busy to walk and chew gum at the same time?

[David Nieporent]

Bill Clinton did not visit Epstein's island.

[Riva]

Clinton is not famous for his honesty, under oath or otherwise asshole. But I'm sure he was working hard on all those trips on Epstein's private jet, just not for charity.

[wvattorney13]

He's not a king. Congress should authorize that if they choose and/or Trump should defer to the professional prosecutors' judgment in the DOJ.

[Josh R]

48 U.S. Code § 1711

[Michael P]

The so-called famine in Gaza resulted in fat Palestinians: https://open.substack.com/pub/danielgreenfield/p/un-report-shows-palestinians-fatter

[ThePublius]

Phatestilians.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's the Jewish way. If you can't kill them by starvation, kill them by obesity. Forget the IDF, sick the Jewish grandmothers on them. ("But you haven't eaten anything yet!")

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Even now I can still smell the kugel! "Okay grandmom, I'll have thirds."

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, lol. As in 'Yes Bubbe' 🙂

[Jmaie]

Reminds me of a show on NPR several years ago, Jewish humor. I laughed hardest at the one where the family patriarch was on his death bed. His daughter came in and asked if there was anything she could get him. He, smelling his wife's kugel, asked for some. The daughter reappeared sometime later, empty handed. When he asked why she hadn't brought him the kugel, she replied, "Mama says that's for after."

[ThePublius]

I developed five rolls of film yesterday. I hadn't developed film in nearly 40 years. It was quite satisfying and nostalgic.

Remarkably, some recently shot 127 Panchromatic film that expired 50 years ago came out just fine, at box speed! (Meaning the rated film speed on the box was still valid now, contrary to common wisdom.)

Some of it was film I shot 25 or so years ago and never developed. It was fun to see what was on it!

I have a couple of 'mystery rolls,' that I don't recall the origin of. A few are Kodacolor, the process for which is no longer available, but it is processable in B&W chemistry (for B&W negatives). One roll I think came out of a Voigtlander Bessa[1] folding camera I bought at a yard sale. It will be interesting to see what's on that film. Another is a roll that was partially exposed that came in a Yashica 44 I bought at a yard sale perhaps 30 years ago.

Fun, fun, fun!

[1] I wish I knew where that camera was. I probably still have it, somewhere. I've seen Voigtlander Bessa II folders going for north of $5,000 in "bargain" condition!

[Mr. Bumble]

Rediscovering old joys. Congratulations.

[Bwaaah]

I fondly imagine the smell of the chemicals, and the slow materialization of images. (Kind of like the moments of truth in Storage Wars.) Like you say...fun, fun, fun!

[ThePublius]

Thanks guys. Yes, the smell of the chemicals is quite nostalgic.

"Smell triggers memory because the brain's olfactory system has a direct connection to the amygdala and hippocampus, regions that process emotions and memory formation, unlike other senses which are first routed through the thalamus. This unique pathway means smells can evoke vivid, emotionally charged memories with more intensity than sight, sound, or touch. This phenomenon, known as the Proust phenomenon, explains why a scent like freshly baked cookies or a specific perfume can instantly transport you to a past experience."

I guess this is why realtors bake cookies when they conduct an open house. 🙂

My experience transported me back to high school, where I was on the "photo staff." We took and processed tons of images. It was like having a job, but it was fun.

The tough part today is deciding what roll of film to process next. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Some of it was film I shot 25 or so years ago and never developed. It was fun to see what was on it!

So, don't keep us in suspense! What was on it?

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes. Both such rolls were all pictures of my ex wife. It was nice to see her as she appeared 25 years ago. I'm going to scan the negatives, make prints, and give them to my kids.

[ThePublius]

After having developed two rolls of Kodacolor as B&W (because the C-22 process chemicals are no longer available) I've seen that B&W negative stock is much more 'archival' than color. The Kodacolor stuff 'came out,' but the negatives are so dark that it will take a very bright light to see if there's anything there worth messing with. The B&W stuff, on the other hand, even the 50 year expired film, is fine.

[Bwaaah]

Open threads should be every other day, not daily. I have increased feelings of futility knowing this starts over again tomorrow. Taking the half life of a discussion down from 24 hours to 12 hours just makes a day add up to nothing. I liked it better when a day added up to half of nothing, and I still had another [dwindling] half of nothing coming tomorrow.

My wife stopped listening to me 30 years ago. This is all I got.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think the old system worked fine.

Sometimes, a major event happened, and it was referenced in another thread. But that didn't happen too often.

The open thread tends to be general stuff and stuff that can wait a day or two anyhow. If the thread is here, people will comment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, no one is forced to comment or even look at the post so there's that.
Also the comment count is noticeably lower (around 400 vs. 600,800 or even on occasion 1000) making it easier to navigate.
Finally, there are fewer long threads which tend to get confusing because of the way the threading is set up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the content, think of it as Groundhog Day.

Welcome back my friend to the show that never ends...

[Voize of Reazon]

Did you say something?

[Bwaaah]

You're not my wife.

[ducksalad]

Are you 100% sure?

[Bwaaah]

It's so humiliating.

No.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
"BBC News,

At least 120 people – 100 of them police officers – have been injured in clashes during anti-government protests in Mexico City, police said.

Thousands of demonstrators marched in the Mexican capital on Saturday to protest against violent crime and President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government.

Madame Presidente blames the whole thing on right wingers. The BBC reports.

The rally was organised by Gen Z youth groups, drawing support from citizens protesting against high-profile killings, including the assassination just weeks ago of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo – who had called for tough action against cartels."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/11/unrest-in-mexico.php

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law reports Judiciary Funding Lapse Prompts Judge to Toss Criminal Case. (The article can be read through Apple News if you hit a paywall on the web.)

The budget for federal public defenders was exhausted in July. No pay, no money for expert witnesses. Pay out of your own pocket and hope one day the government reimburses you. Judge John Mendez (E. D. Cal.) dismissed a drug case last week because the defendant was not getting the full benefit of appointed counsel. He thought it unfair that the prosection was fully funded.

[Davy C]

Pay out of your own pocket and hope one day the government reimburses you.

If you can afford to pay out of your own pocket, why is the government paying in the first place?

[John F. Carr]

The referent of "you" was meant to be the public defender who had a legal duty to his client but no appropriated funds.

[wvattorney13]

That is a problem everywhere. The legislature wants to spend money on everything but when it comes to paying money for "criminals" everyone decides to be your grandmother clipping coupons.

You need rulings like this to force them to fund it so they can point the finger at "left wing judges."

[Poxigah146]

No, the problem is Gideon v. Wainwright in the first place. The constitution says you have a right to counsel. It doesn't say you have the right to taxpayer funded counsel if you can't afford one.

Indigent people should have to face the state themselves. But that just means that more poor people will be convicted. They're mostly going to be low functioning people we're better off out of the way anyway.

Think back. Have you ever known a poor person who was actually a good person? I haven't. Not in America.

[Bunny495]

"Think back. Have you ever known a poor person who was actually a good person? I haven't. Not in America"

Truth be told I have. As my Grandmother use to say "there is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, it's hard to tell them from the rest of us".

[Mr. Bumble]

"Think back. Have you ever known a poor person who was actually a good person? I haven't. Not in America."
Maybe it's you who isn't the good person.

[John F. Carr]

In 2015 a dam collapse in Brazil killed 19 people and caused widespread damage. The pool behind the dam was full of toxic waste. This month a British court found BHP Group liable for the damage. BHP owned the toxic waste. It did not own the dam. The judge though BHP was negligent in asking for the dam to be raised.

One article implied that BHP was liable under a theory of strict liability for inherently dangerous activity. The AP article below says liability was based on negligence.

Damages are expected to be in the billions, on $23 billion already committed to settle a case brought by Brazil.

https://apnews.com/article/brazil-bhp-dam-collapse-london-court-ruling-samarco-d6fab2f4c1a9f6d11fbabf5e68290230

[John F. Carr]

U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is the last one to know that weapons makers are overpaid.

"(The) defense industrial base broadly, and the primes in particular, conned the American people and the Pentagon and the Army," Driscoll told reporters, referring to prime contractors that work directly with the government.
He added that, in part, it was the government's fault for creating incentive structures that encouraged companies to charge astronomical prices.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/weapons-makers-have-conned-us-military-into-buying-expensive-equipment-army-2025-11-14/

See also Eisenhower's farewell address, from the long-lost time when Americans liked their presidents.

[Michael P]

I am curious about the specific example of a control knob. I am skeptical that the claimed $47,000 represents just recurring costs for the knob -- the wording suggests that maybe the entire assembly costs $47k, or (in my experience) the per-unit cost might also include non-recurring costs to develop the item.

I am currently working on a large, complex, firm-fixed-price project. It's a mess on both sides of the acquisition, largely because there are only a few instances of this kind of system in the world, and every instance has significant differences from the others. FFP acquisitions work well in cases where the work is well-defined up front, but uncertainty and risk lead to the supplier pricing in reserves, and people will complain that this represents excessive profits in the usual case where not all of the reserves are used.

[ducksalad]

One has to distinguish "we are paying too much" (definitely true) from "they are overpaid" (maybe not).

What Michael P said on the knob. If anything in the specification triggered a custom design with a new mold, the non-recurring cost is likely to be >$50K even in a low-cost consumer electronics environment. But once the magic MIL numbers show up anywhere in the spec, that gets multiplied. Military specifications imply a whole infrastructure of calibration and test facilities and a whole division of people to certify this and that.

Having done the paperwork for a single job once, I would not contract to sell the military a single paper clip for under $3000 unless already set up as an ongoing paper clip vendor. The first-time paperwork is just too much.

[Michael P]

https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/TroopSupport/Subsistence/Rations/mil/44072.pdf is a somewhat infamous example -- one might look at that, and the first two questions that come to mind are "Why does the Army need a 26-page recipe for chocolate covered brownies?" and "Why does it also cover oatmeal cookies?" The answers are a little more clear upon reading the thing: there are specific standards for each ingredient, for packaging, for shelf life, and more. Almost a page is used to specify the fat used in the chocolate coating. Anyone who wants to sell those cookies or brownies to the DoD will need to confirm that their supply chain meets a ton of other acquisition standards. Done per spec, DoD procurement has QA piled on top of QA. Done outside of spec, warfighters and civilians can be seriously hurt or killed (and vendors hopefully get ruined in court when that happens).

[wvattorney13]

As an outsider looking in, it certainly seems like overkill. I would think that you could call up Keebler and get a special order for chocolate chip cookies. If there was a complaint that they were spoiling or of poor quality, talk to them about it or go to the competitor.

[Michael P]

Do you have a justification for that sole source procurement?

(Any purchase above a fairly low dollar threshold, currently $10,000, needs either three quotes from a competitive process, or a sole source justification that explains why it basically isn't possible to get three quotes. The government writes that kind of spec in order to go get quotes. The spec may be written to favor a particular bidder, but it would at least check the bureaucracy process box.)

[ducksalad]

Having defended the defense contractors, let me know criticize the procurement side.

The whole competitive bidding thing was supposed to save costs (and also give everyone a fair shot at their share of the pork), but it's had unintended consequences.

In normal life, you might want to pry some old siding off your house. You go down to the hardware store with no particular idea in mind, see some tool that looks like it would work, and buy it.

But in government, no we can't have that, because you might buy an expensive one from your brother-in-law's hardware store or even God forbid pick a hardware store because it's owned by someone of your favored race or religion.

So you are forced to write, in the abstract, your technical description of the perfect prying tool, keeping in mind that you'll be forced to accept the lowest bidder that meets your description. As anyone who's taken advanced math knows it's read damn hard to write conditions that are both necessary and sufficient, so you end up including unnecessary to cover sufficient.

The end result is a pry bar that has to be custom designed, costs $40,000, and takes six months to deliver.

Or to avoid all that, the procurement person does a sole source justification. As you are well aware, that's often done by randomly picking some unimportant aspect about the one they want that the others don't have ("must have a black and red resin handle"). Fortunately people understand that the procurement person is probably just trying to save both time and money and don't question it too hard.

[Jmaie]

Back in the 80's, I think it was, there was a similar discussion of gazillion dollar toilet seats. Exact same thing, had to tool up an entire assembly line due to rigidity of specs...

[Brett Bellmore]

I remember the absurdly expensive coffee maker in Air Force bombers. It started to make sense once you understood it was required to not spray hot coffee in the event of a cabin depressurization accident while pulling negative gs.

And, yeah, a pilot in those circumstances probably does not need to deal with a face full of hot coffee, too.

[santamonica811]

Jmaie,
My recollection was that it was ashtrays (that were costing either hundreds or thousands per unit). "The West Wing" addressed it, tangentially, in one episode, where the guy demonstrated the ashtray by breaking one for Donna Moss. He pointed out that it broke, cleanly, in 3 large pieces...exactly as it had been designed to. The guy pointed out to Donna that it was for a submarine (IIRC), and on a sub, it's absolutely imperative that--when things fall and break...and that will happen--there are not shards of glass lying around afterwards. Designing and building that kind of special-use ashtray indeed ends up costing much much much more than your bog-standard ashtray.

[Sarcastr0]

Military equipment should not be so exquisitely designed.

[Bwaaah]

You can build the first modern plane with vibey specifications. You can tout it as being "not exquisitely designed."

It would fly like you do.

[ducksalad]

This is true, as is Brett's about the coffeemaker.

But in non-military but still safety critical applications people manage to come up with other solutions, for example, "no hot beverages while operating the forklift". And the ashtray is a particularly bad example given that (according to Bing's AI) smoking was banned entirely on US military submarines in 2010.

[santamonica811]

Yes, in response to that scathing "The West Wing" episode.
(Joking, of course.)

[Jmaie]

There were actually a number of items, according to Wiki the toilet seat was $600 and quite a bit more for the coffee pot Brett mentioned. I've no doubt there was a host of other items as well...

[Bunny495]

This is always more complicated than it may appear. There is the famous story about NASA needing a ball point pen to write in zero gravity. When they first came out, I bought one for ten bucks or so and really thought it was cool that it would write upside down. The USSR took a different approach; they used pencils when they went into space.

I have mixed feelings about how much is spent on lots of government purchases. I also enjoy some of the products that R&D has produced. Not sure there is a happy ending to this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://nypost.com/2025/10/22/business/robby-starbuck-sues-google-after-ai-bot-accused-him-of-sex-assault/

Could become landmark AI hallucination lawsuit.

[jb]

This came up a few weeks ago. Conspicuously missing from the complaint are any screenshots or context other then one email exchange with a random Google employee that didn't work on anything remotely related to Gemini. I'm pretty skeptical of the whole thing, but we'll know more if we get to the point actual evidence is presented.

[Poxigah146]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/16/us-news/bigwig-on-zohran-mamdanis-transition-team-railed-against-jews-questioned-gay-rights

I'm loving the infighting here.

[Z Crazy]

40% of American women 15-44 would like to elave the U.S. permanently.

https://www.threads.com/@jxseph_tebou/post/DRE3-6lDmr5/women-who-are-young-and-at-a-childbearing-age-wanting-to-leave-is-hilarious-ther

Will they have better romantic prospects in Estonia or the Philippines?

[Mr. Bumble]

What's stopping them?

[Poxigah146]

I would love them to leave. They add nothing to America.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Well they certainly add nothing to you!