ricecake

Correct. It's the cuts to the VA that'll piss them off. The Medicaid cuts will piss them off because it'll impact their families.

While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.

There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.

For fucks sake, we literally did that after founding the country and people just forget.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation

The founding fathers were so totally not infallible that they themselves said "we messed that one up" within a few years and reworked the whole thing.
They absolutely never even intended it to be a static document. It's telling that the first published version of it is mostly composed of amendments to the main document. They couldn't even get out the door without thinking of ten changes that needed to be made.

https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/biggest-privacy-erosion-in-10-years-on-googles-policy-change-towards-fingerprinting/

This article actually shares what changed, as opposed to just asserting that there was a change.

If you have reason to believe they are, you explain that reasoning to a court and if the reasoning is sufficiently persuasive the company can be compelled to provide internal information that could show whatever is going on.
Hiding this information or destroying it typically carries personal penalties for the individuals involved in it's destruction, as well as itself being evidence against the organization. "If your company didn't collect this information, why are four IT administrators and their manager serving 10 years in prison for intentionally deleting relevant business records?"

The courts are allowed to go through your stuff.

Just for an example that isn't visible to the user: the server needs to know how it can communicate responses to the browser.
So it's not just "what fonts do you have", it also needs to know "what type of image can you render? What type of data compression do you speak? Can I hold this connection open for a few seconds to avoid having to spend a bunch of time establishing a new connection? We all agree that basic text can be represented using 7-bit ASCII, but can you parse something from this millennium?”.

Beyond that there's all the parameters of the actual connection that lives beneath http. What tls ciphers do you support? What extensions?

The exposure of the basic information needed to make a request reveals information which may be sufficient to significantly track a user.

I'm sorry to hear you're having a hard time. It can be difficult to reconcile something you consider part of yourself being shared by others alwhile they also do or say things that you know are wrong. Regardless of your particular doctrines views on the matter, on paper it's not acceptable to wish harm on others or celebrate it.

I don't believe in a deity, and I don't hold it against anyone who does.

What you need to do, in my opinion, is taken a step back and ask yourself if you do or not, or if you're just not sure.
Then think about what makes you say you don't want to leave. You shared good reasons for wanting to leave, so what are your reasons for staying? What are you getting out of it?

Once you know where you stand on dieties, and have thought about what you're reluctant to let go you'll be in a better position to do what's right for you.
Some people stay in a religion for social reasons.
You might be able to find what you need from the church elsewhere.

Regardless of the answers, remember that you can choose to live the highest ideals of Christianity regardless of membership in a church or faith in any diety. That affiliation with people who are failing at that has caused distress is at least a sign that you're pointed in that direction, so trust in yourself and try to act with kindness and love, and look after yourself.

In some ways what he's doing is worse. By loudly threatening a mixed bag of tarrifs and making it unclear where things actually are he drives companies to raise prices because everyone else is, because they can, because they expect the tarrifs, or because there actually are tarrifs.

He's done a slew of tarrifs, threatened more, and also rolled some back shortly after imposing them.

There are a variety of ways. One way is to run a computer program that executes each strategy and then just have them all go against each other some number of times like a tournament, or sometimes just "random matchings". Super fast to do so it's easy to try different scenarios and make a lot of different strategies.

They've also done tournaments with actual people, and then compared the different people's behavior to the different "pure" strategies that they made. This helps them validate that the behaviors carry over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

It's worth noting that nation states don't always behave the same as individuals, but often closer to the game theory ideal. Additionally, there are circumstances where tit for tat isn't actually the dominant strategy, specifically when you know that the game is going to end.

People don't typically put the smallest part at the bottom of the pyramid, since pyramids have the biggest part at the bottom.

It's pretty typical to, when discussing things with ranked importance of that build in one another, to arrange them like a pyramid to convey the ordered nature.

I'm growing irritated at this type of comment being the top of every thread about anything they do.

Just like how they can do multiple things at once, people can react to multiple things at once.

Telling people to shut up and take it is.... Well, "congrats, you're doing exactly what they want".

Which do you think is more likely to get people to do something? The perception that they've done one terrible thing or the perception they've done a bunch of terrible things, some awful ones, and uncountable absolutely idiotic ones?

Well, yeah. That's what it said.

It's trained by reading the horrible morass of stuff on the Internet. Topics with larger amounts of disinformation are areas where they're very prone to making mistakes. Crossing those topics with ones that misinformation or the appearance of misinformation are particularly damaging to the world or to their reputation and you have a good list of topics that are probably not good candidates to let your chatbot talk about.

It doesn't do "reasoning" or "critical thinking" in the way you might expect for something that can communicate articulately. It doesn't know what's accurate or not, only what's likely to be stated on the Internet. Unfortunately, it's very likely for people on the Internet to say some bonkers things about the 2020 election in specific, and anything political in general. Even in sources that normally might be ranked higher for factuality, like a news publication.
It's not just trump, it's anything political.

This type of AI isn't an expert, it's a mimic. It knows how to mimic patterns, and it's been told to mimic something knowledgeable and helpful based on all the text on the Internet, where people regularly present themselves as knowledgeable regardless of their basic sanity.