That may be true but changing the department's name can only be done with an act of congress, which has not been done yet. Thus, the name is still officially and legally Dept of Defense.
Just because a name is more accurate doesn't mean that it's its new name. Otherwise we wouldn't be the United States of America (we are literally not united bc Hawaii and Alaska are not contiguous, and we are figuratively not united because... Well, you know)
As a recap, my reply to your reply was that DoD is the actual newspeak, and your reply to that evolution of the discussion is that you were not discussing newspeak.
In trying to understand if I'm missing something, I looked up what newspeak means. I (as well as probably a few other commenters based on the contents of their comments) was under the assumption it meant "new speak" meaning it's something new.
In case anyone else reading this was not aware of this, this is what I discovered.
It's a term from George Orwell's 1984, describing a language used to make thoughts unthinkable by removing words from the language. It has nothing to do with "age of the term."
Hence, Dept of Defense is indeed newspeak. Dept of War, while being a new name for the dept, is too literal to be newspeak.
Thanks for the opportunity for me to learn something!
Department of Defense has historically been a prime example of newspeak.
I think Department of War is also newspeak. Or at least, they didn't change the name just to get the name in line with the amount of war the department does.
They changed it because they wanted to do more even more war. The amount of war the department does under the name "Defense" has been status quo for a long time, and my take is they wanted us to think of them differently so they could do even more war, which they have since been doing.
The person you're responding to probably hasn't read the book and is just parroting the word. That's kinda where we're at right now in society. I see the comments by malfist and abustamam are similar. No idea what newspeak means, just parroting and saying "that's not its name".
The problem will get worse as we have a generation raised by LLMs.
If only I were lucky enough to get LLM generated responses, usually a question like "Did you consider if X would also solve this problem?" results in a flurry of force pushed commits that overwrite history to do X but also 7 other unrelated things that work around minor snags the LLM hit doing X.
Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over murders by default. There are two obvious cases where they do (murder of a federal official, murder on federal land) and a shaky third category of "murder pursuant to another federal crime".
In the past that third category has been used to charge organized criminals, anything that touches the interstate commerce act (drug trafficking/contract killing/etc), and terrorism.
Charging Mangione with federal murder connected to a federal stalking charge was relatively unprecedented, but they might get it to stick on appeal. Stalking is threatening but maybe not inherently violent, but that seems similar to bank robbery (where FDIC insurance is frequently used to grant federal jurisdiction over involved homicides).
Mangione is charged with killing a man (in New York, with New York state jurisdiction) and stalking a man (across multiple states, the federal charge). There is no such thing as a federal crime of fleeing across state lines or owning a list of assassination targets.
> “Nisin and mutacin 1140 have potent activities (nanomolar or submicromolar activity) against well-known Gram-positive pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Nisin has been used as a food preservative for more than 50 years without inducing significant resistance”
> “ Despite the short half-life of mutacin 1140 in blood, analogs of mutacin 1140 were demonstrated to have increased gastric stability and were effective in treating a Clostridium difficile infection in hamsters “
this very interesting to me.
we fought off a extreme overgrowth of staph aureus with a regiment of probiotics and bacillus subtillis (a bacterium found in dirt that is known to disrupt quorum of bacteria that create biofilms.
biofilms are a huge reason to floss and brush our teeth, it’s like a slime that protects and nourishes the bad bacteria on our teeth.
this bit from the sparse wikipedia was interesting.
“Mutacin 1140 belongs to the epidermin subset of type Al lantibiotics.”
are there other bacterium in our oral/gut that produce these kind of compounds?
that said, if i floss, occasional use mouth wash, or drink a alcoholic beverage will this bomb the micro biome in my mouth making a one time dose magic cure a expensive maintenance cost?
Wouldn’t it be better to have a probiotic toothpaste?
Maybe, but soccer doesn't have very many situations where there are ~14 players standing in spitting distance of each other and a 6 inch shift in the position of the ball or a single player has huge implications for the outcome of the game.
reply