The "current one" is Department of Defense. They are illegally branding it otherwise without congressional approval, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
More fundamentally, it's hard to convey just how much better a government that wages wars but ostensibly says that they're bad is than a government that gleefully does so. I'll take a flawed democracy that partakes in immoral operations over an openly-imperialist autocracy any day of the week -- as should we all!
It’s fine that a secondary consequence is them showing their foolish hand; I’ll give you that, but this not normal and should not just be absorbed as though it’s normal and that’s just what we call it now
Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president, so I would say it is indeed quite normal. If by "not normal" you mean "not acceptable" then I agree, but that doesn't change that "Department of War" is more correct than "Department of Defense"
> Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president
I'm sorry, but I think both parties would actually agree on the fact that Trump is doing a lot of "out of the ordinary" for an American president.
No other president after WWII has reduced federal workforce by >8% (DOGE), and then rehired a bunch. No other US president ordered the capturing a head of state (Venezuela) and framed it as a law enforcement action. No president has ignored congress or the constitution like Trump has (tariffs, ICE, Greenland).
He uses executive orders a lot more than previous presidents: ~209 per year in his 2nd term. The next highest are Truman (113/year), Carter (80/year) and Kennedy (75/year).
I find it amusing that Trump ran with the promise of "no new wars", and then immediately tries to change the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a hollow promise from Trump at this point.
As an outsider, the extent and depth of the contradictions are really fascinating, OTOH repeated to the point that nothing surprises anyone anymore.
I keep thinking what's the psychology behind this that makes it work and if they are mostly in on the act or if they really rely on many "useful idiots" like their political opponents keep suggesting.
The discussion around useful idiots became concerning for me as I'm learning to respect people even in the most "don't look up"-like situations, trying to understand their individual motives without judging them. The main problem in political discussions, I figured, is the fact that we have 2-3 groups we try to fit people into.
Unfortunately, useful idiot is a valid phenomena but much of what we observe in the US is disempowerment. The congress people believe that they don't have power outside the president's benevolence and hence does not assert their constitutional powers. The constitutional court is either partisan or outright corrupt and does not work as a corrective. The execution branch are ready to serve the president and not their assigned duties or the law. Many ordinary voters do not feel personal responsibility for acting, but prefer to rely on whoever promises them emotional validation instead of forming and empowering their communities. This is not a single thing, this is a combination of effects that influence and amplify each other.
I find it amusing that Franco ran with the promise of "justice for those with clean hands," and then immediately enacted the Law of Political Responsibilities to institutionalize the summary execution of tens of thousands of his political opponents.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a hollow promise from Franco at this point.
Ah, but who's "they"? Names of departments are determined by Congress, and Congress has not renamed the DoD. The executive branch does not normally determine the names of its own departments. If you imagine the American government to be a single coherent entity, one might say "they have full naming rights", but it isn't, and in this case, the part doing the rename isn't the part that properly has the power to do so!
No, the President does not have “full naming rights” over entities defined and named in statute law. The President is bound to faithfully execute that law, but to change it (even if that change is merely to the name of a department or title of an officer specified within it) requires a bill to that effect to be passed by a majority of each house of Congress, which the President may then sign into law, effecting the change.
Because they used millions of dollars of American citizens’ tax revenue to make a meaningless edgelord gesture, amongst a myriad of other reasons why it’s a bizarre and childish thing to do. Stopping there because this isn’t Reddit
It’s not meaningless; it’s a way for them to immediately prove that the person speaking has been intimidated enough by them to acquiesce to this absurdity. If they don’t, they can be punished just for refusing. If they do, they’re already back on their heels proving their willingness to cave on anything else.
> why. unlike with the gulf of mexico, in this case they have full naming rights.
They actually don't. The official name is still the Department of Defense and only Congress can approve a real name change.
The Trump Executive Order just gives the department permission to use the Department of War name without actually changing the name of the department from the Department of Defense.
That said, despite being anti-Trump I'm fine with calling it the Department of War, it seems a lot more honest.
Out of curiosity what particular part of the original text needed to be polished and why couldn’t the writer accomplish said polish without a language model?
When writing the articles in that series, the focus was more on getting the technical ideas and details right, not on spelling, grammar and text flow in which LLMs excel. That specific section "Why this maps to Genetic Algorithms?" makes the point that the fit of Genetic Algorithms to state space exploration is not a coincidence, and argues that the evolutionary process itself is a state space exploration algorithm that allows a given species to advance further down life's timeline. But thanks for the question, I do agree that as LLM generated text becomes more ubiquitous everywhere, we all do appreciate more our own human writing style even for the highly technical text where the focus is on the technical ideas and not so much on the presentation language itself.
I’d recommend providing a lot more screenshots and information about how the core DAW functionality works in comparison to other DAWs. As is I can’t see enough about what this would feel like to spend my time downloading and trying it
Some video recordings would be extra nice also, that shows the software in use on an example audio project. Including showcasing of how you work with the revision history and branches, and how it enables collaboration.
One nitpicky detail is that the executives may be a rep for the customer/consumer, but are also very much reps for the shareholders and that’s a pretty big distinction
The part about his team is so obviously performative, as though he’s such a great leader he just couldn’t help himself from being a dick because someone was “speaking down to his team”
A mediocre PR staffer got paid a decent piece of money to find a way to frame ab outburst as heroic
Operating at a loss to buy market share is pretty much the norm at this point. Look behind the curtain at any “unicorn” for the past 3 decades and you’ll see VCs propping up losses until the general population has grown too dependent on the service to walk away when the pricing catches up to reality.
Are we forgetting that this specific policy we are discussing was voted in by the public and won the popular vote barely more than a year ago?
I think if more people were legitimately better educated and informed that outcome might not have happened.
The problem is…who is doing the informing and educating? Oftentimes the sources taking up that role are doing so with motives that are not in the people’s best interests.
Wow. Great. Which term is our President on again and can you confirm that time flows linearly and cannot, in fact, flow backwards to undo the election?
The public has no ability to affect change on the policy this Presidency makes. Especially not the public that is predisposed to dislike the President.
This is sadistic and selfish to believe the public must be relentlessly informed of these individual policies that they cannot do anything about. Anything they are informed about present day will almost certainly be forgotten years down the line. But they'll be stressed and unhappy along the way.
Well now you’re moving goalposts by adding specific time periods as qualifiers. So when you made your original statement, you meant to say that the ability to affect change ended recently? And now “This is foisting misery on people who have no capacity to affect change.”
Well, even that isn’t true. The congressional midterms are next year. Control over congress is on the ballot. Turnout will be the decider as it always is.
If “did not vote” was a candidate, it often wins elections.
In addition, local politics happen every year with higher levels of influence per person, and they often directly affect individuals more than national politics.
Going around telling people they have no impact guarantees that outcome.
Considering time does, in fact, move linearly and only in one direction - it's a default. Not a moved goalpost.
And referring to the present in contrast with the next Presidential election - an event thematically related to the previous Presidential election that you referenced - it seemed relevant.
As for what people need to be informed about - they'll inform themselves via increased prices on just about everything due to tarriffs + continued lowered interest rates despite notable inflationary pressures.
I maintain it is cruel to relentlessly and aggressively inform people of the horrors of the world that they - and I repeat myself - cannot do anything about. From news media fewer and fewer trust every year.
Hi OP! I’ll share what I mentioned below in hopes of a response from you directly, because I’m genuinely curious to hear what you think:
Seems like people should be of whatever age we consider mature before they start capturing intimate data about themselves on random platforms. If we don’t think you’re able to understand the risks of pursuing your reproductive impulses, do we think you can measure the risks of sharing data about those impulses on a platform you don’t control?
Local data or not, if I were the steward of a marketplace I’d use that position to create this kind of teaching moment for pre-developed consumers. If young people had been warned since the mid 2000s of how much of their intimacy they were handing over to Meta, ByteDance, etc. before they started, the world would certainly be better off.
Hey! I don’t disagree that people of any age should think twice before putting personal data (intimate or not) into any platform.
My point wasn’t about lowering the age rating. The issue is that Apple doesn’t have a real category for this kind of wellbeing at all. The age gate itself is sensible, but what’s funny is why it exists. It’s not "because we carefully considered how to protect teens’ data", it’s "because in 2009 the Store was drowning in farting apps, and we’ve been patching around that ever since."
Urm, did you read a different article then the one linked?
Because there's isn't really an argument innit - at least none that I took notice of. Isn't it just exploring the reasons why it is like it is today? They even made it abundantly clear in the beginning (and in the comments here) that the rating is fine for the app
And for what conceivable reason would this need to have sure underage people aren't using it?
A period tracker has relevance in the context of a sexual relationship, but there is really nothing about it that needs to be censored from underage people. It is not explicit content. It's a specialized journal, that's it
reply