The US is relatively weak without its allies. NATO was the real superpower in the west. The current regime got too big for their britches and tried to go it alone.
Stock prices are reflection of what speculators expect to happen. So the depleted munitions thanks to Ukraine and the drive to get some independence from an unreliable Trump regime makes this unsurprising.
It depends whether you believe the paper strength or actual strength. On paper the Russian army was the second most powerful in the world. In practice it's the second most powerful in Ukraine. On paper the US army is the most powerful in the world. In practice they've been brought to a standstill by a third-rate power in the middle east. Before that in Vietnam, Iraq, and by something that's barely a country, Afghanistan. Some years ago I saw a Vietnamese film about the American War in which an NVA officer told his men "kill them and keep killing them until they stop coming". It doesn't matter how many expensive toys you have if the other side is determined to outlast you.
And don't forget who makes up NATO. Would you want to go up against someone like the Finns? Ask any US troops who have trained with them.
"How many Oreshniks do the Finns have?" To modernise Stalin.
I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but Russia is absolutely wrecking The Ukraine and by extension the NATO vassal states in Europe. It's hard for you to comprehend because your propaganda machines are incredibly effective, and your statements and questions show that you're incapable of looking at the other side and the other side is reality.
Whether or not the UX is better, from a security standpoint I choose the web version because of browser sandboxing unless I'm forced to use the app. If I'm forced to use the app, I probably choose not to use the service.
True, but I'm guessing they're referring to anatomically modern humans which have only been here for a couple hundred thousand years. Not sure that's a meaningful way to look at it since I'm assume Neanderthals also evolved somewhat during that time.
Missing the point. If CEOs realize that they're more replaceable by AI than nurses and medical assistants, for example, then maybe they'll take a more nuanced view of the technology.
No, you're missing the point, because the views of the people to be laid off are irrelevant. Again, the stockholders own the company, not the CEO. If CEOs start chaging their tune on AI as soon as their own jobs are at stake, that would just demonstrate to the stockholders that human CEOs are untrustworthy and need to be replaced.
Before AI came along, CEOs were already arbitrarily laying off workers, to please the stockholders. The stockholders like these cost-cutting measures, and whether the measures make sense is secondary to the CEOs doing what their bosses want. If the stockholders believe that they can cut the CEOs too, they surely will.
The chain of responsibility must include the AI vendor. If vendors aren't liable for malpractice, there will be less incentive for all due diligence when lives are on the line.
Many of us were alive when the TSA was created. It's not a mystery why it's there. (Mostly so politicians could say they did something to improve air travel security.)
reply