Replaced by his son.

> consider why so many people were upset.

Were there lots of people upset? Or was it a small number of people with power who were upset? Like, I'm not at all surprised by how this played out, but it's not clear that anyone was upset beyond some people who don't take well to criticism.

Say hypothetically 1000 people were having great fun using it to cyberbully 10 people. It’s impossible to say that it’s no big deal because 99% of users loved it, unless you know exactly how much the 1% hated it.

It's not just people with power. Even if he had taken care to conciliate people with connections, it would have eventually blown up by someone going to police directly.

This was exactly my point You can always find 10 people who will hate on things, that doesnt mean you should get to ruin things for 1000’s of others

If the thing directly impacts them then yes, it should get to ruin things for the rest. If you don't understand why that is desirable then somebody should make a website describing which NSFW websites you like to frequent to spook your future investors.

it's like a trolly problem where the main line is "status quo" but you can optionally pull a lever labelled "students who like anonymous internet rumoring get more of it and also some students are victimized"

You can always find people who will like something, that doesn't mean you should do it.

For example, there are people who watch some sick shit on the internet, that doesn't mean you should serve it up.

And what better way to support that by making some money selling weapons, especially if it gives you a chance to expand your manufacturing base due to increased demand?

> the known poison, dihydrogen monoxide

Oh shit, they put that stuff in Root Beer? I hear that kills thousands of people every year—from kids to the elderly.

Yeah that shit is just loaded with hydric acid, too - it's got a pH of 7, the highest pH of any acid.

Goddamn, even Sulfuric only has a pH of 3, at most. That Dihydrogen monoxide stuff is DANGEROUS.

How much of that was actual spending—and if so, where did the money end up?—and how much of that was just fraud?

> a human mises a cancer, that 10 out of 10 radiology models say it's there with 99% confidence

I think the cases where judgements differ—either between humans or AI or both–will be the difficult to discern cases, where no human and no LLM will have 99% confidence.

> Correction: Hegseth is a crusader. [...SNIP...] He might be an idiot alcoholic, but he very much knows what he is doing.

That sound like he knows what he wants to do, but that's not the same as knowing what he is doing.

Indeed.

One of the contracting things I turned down was someone who knew what they wanted to do was make Uber for aircraft.

I turned it down because they clearly didn't know enough about this goal to fill an elevator pitch, let alone a slide deck, and I think many of the current US Secretary of XYZ leaders are similarly unaware of how vast a chasm lay between what they wanted to do and a specific, measurable, realistic, and time-constrained plan to actually achieve anything.

English language ambiguity problem. "Knows what he is doing" has two potential meanings: it could mean competence, or it could mean clear intent. I think OP meant the latter.

> Nothing in this war has suggested carriers are obsolete.

What are ours doing during this war?

Adding 70+ strike and AEW aircraft apiece, individually more than most national air forces could muster.

Are you joking? Sending F-18s into the air.

No, just asking—I know they're staying out of the gulf, but I don't know how involved they are, and I figured someone here did.

They're the only thing involved pretty much. The gulf nations have not allowed the US to launch from their bases in the region. Maybe that will change as they keep getting attacked but as of now the carriers (and now the base on Cyprus) are where the planes are coming from. The strategic bombers, prior to Cyprus, were taking off from the US and flying all the way to Iran and back.

> The gulf nations have not allowed the US to launch from their bases in the region.

This is a categorically false assertion that they have been putting to assuage their local populations - which are heavily opposed to the war and the US support. Maybe not all of them, but some of them, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are clearly hosting and allowing the US to prosecute the war from their soil. If they weren't, you wouldn't have had the AWACS aircraft getting turned to smithereens in Riyadh.

AWACS and tankers don’t fire missiles or drop bombs.

It’s perhaps a distinction without a difference but it’s the line that appears to have been currently drawn.

Doesn't matter. The internal messaging of the Gulf govts to their people initially was that "we're not hosting US forces, why is Iran attacking us??". Now that veneer is being peeled off.

> I watched it twice, which is pretty unheard of for me. I thought the book was fine but not a favourite.

I think it's interesting when a movie can be faithful, and yet hit differently. Conclave was like that for me—I enjoyed the book, but it came across as a political thriller with a Catholic twist. But the movie, by showing all of the uniforms, all of the architecture and art, came across far more significant than just a political thriller. A great cast helped with that, admittedly.