They were in international waters. This was literally a war crime according to international law. Even the killing of the Supreme leader was against international law.
His daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren were civilians.
Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.
Even if they were not targeted directly, an attack is illegal if:
it fails to minimize civilian harm, or
the civilian casualties are disproportionate to the military advantage
I don't believe you can minimize civilian damage more than that, if a target is always among civilians.
You can only push so much, like the pager attack was probably the most minimizing one, but obviously and unfortunately civilians still got caught.
For the international law part, interesting debate i think, where the state acts in self-defense if it has sustained an “armed attack” by its adversary;. Obviously this is very broad, but i think you can easily argue the last 40 year of fire exchanges as a continued armed attack.
Half the world chants that. Currently, probably more. Americans have managed even to alienate the ass-kissing politicians from europe. Even in US, the people are protesting against the current president, and no wonder... trump wants 200 billion more while people can't afford healthcare and education and some cities look like cities from apocalypse movies, with homeless camps everywhere.
Currently lot if people dislike/distrust america. Which is understandable and rational thing to do. Chanting “deato xyz” is very irrational and unproductive and just bad.
But the US, for all its militarism, and all its military adventures, has not used the draft since Vietnam.
So I would say that Germany sees the need to be in a position where it can respond quickly if they need it. Well, given current events in their neighborhood, I can see their point. In fact, I would say that they are probably at least three years late in doing this.
I mean, short term it's obvious what will happen. Europe's peace at all costs (or should I say: at NO cost) will fail and Russia will attack in a matter of years. Some states will be forced to defend and a number of European countries will respond as a coalition. Many other European states will refuse to help, a few very publicly. And obviously this coalition will either beat Russia back or at the very least stop Russia advancing much at all. So far the obvious part of the next few years.
Let's start with an easy one: Will Germany be ready (war is more than cheap bodies, after all, equipment, plans, ...)? No, they won't. They've never been ready before.
Will the US help? That was a given even just 1 year ago, but now is strongly in doubt.
What will Germany's reaction be to the European states that just don't help?
What will happen to world trade? The question is who will save it, because the historical answer was of course US.
I am a US citizen and I try to see the world as it is.
>Will the US help? That was a given even just 1 year ago, but now is strongly in doubt. With the current commander in chief, the US will do nothing except talk a lot of nonsense contradicting itself daily.
>What will happen to world trade?. World trade as we know it is done. National security interests will force strategic industries to be on-shored. New trade deals will only be made with a short list of trustworthy allies.
If Russia does attack, the US will take 1+ years to ramp up and we will take a long time before we reach Europe in large numbers. The rapid reaction forces we have are not prepared for the new way of fighting we see in Ukraine.
I don't know about that. When a human realizes that what they're saying is nonsense and decides to shut up, we might call that "self awareness". I'm not sure that it's the same as we mean by "self awareness" when we talk about consciousness, but it seems likely to be at least a part of it.
So if you can make an AI at least partly self aware (in the consciousness sense) by having it run an anomaly detector on its own output, that seems to me to be a fairly big deal. Not "agency", I suspect not even all the way to "self aware", but still a big step.
Big theoretically, and also big practically. If you can make an LLM shut up rather than hallucinate, that's a big step up in usability. "I don't know" is far more useful than confident errors. (At least silence doesn't have negative value.)
Well, it depends on what your product is. (I presume your story is about the product being useful.)
If it's your product, and it's a tech product, it might be appropriate for "Show HN". If you do, though, the tone should be "hey, you might find this interesting", rather than a sales job.
If the product solves a problem, you might find a Reddit sub about the problem.
We might have been able to fund both. We couldn't do both and give a massive tax cut to the rich, though.
And, between "wars" and "daycare", the "daycare" set of funds are actually appropriated by Congress, and therefore are funds that the government is actually legally authorized (and even required) to spend.
>therefore are funds that the government is actually legally authorized (and even required) to spend
Hasn't Trump and the unitary executive theorists decided that since the executive actually administrates the departments and moves funding, that the executive can just decide to not send money to, or fire the staff from any given executive function Congress authorises?
While the courts may not agree with the new theory, it's a lot easier for Trump to destroy and delay than it is for the courts or Congress to compel him to rebuild and fund.
reply