MajorasMaskForever

What I was referencing by proxy war was Ukraine and what Israel was supposed to be. The US sends arms to another nation with the intention that the other nation, who is already in conflict (or just happens to be through dubious and convenient circumstances) will take those arms and give political adversaries a bloody nose or serve as enough of a distraction that they won't come after the US and keeps the US from putting boots on the ground. Is working out quite well for us in Ukraine, Israel was supposed to distract the middle east but turns out that when you hand a genocidal maniac a bunch of weapons, he's gonna do maniacal genocidal things with them. Who could have possibly guessed

Someone who works in said US defense industry here

Neither defense nor war really apply to what we do, but between the two defense is the more apt description. The DoD largely uses a strategy of deterrence, where the technology we develop and training done for the "war fighter" is just public and visible enough that no other major country wants to take the risk of going into full open conflict with the US. Since most efforts go into deterrence, and deterrence is a defense strategy, it does become the more appropriate word.

Sure the US loves its proxy wars, but those don't throw the entire nation into wartime. Plus, in a round about way proxy wars help with the deterrence since we get an outlet for the decades old stock piles of arms that we no longer want and want to replace with the new stuff. If our waste products are being useful in places like Ukraine, it helps build up an idea of what it is we keep for ourselves, again building up a deterrence of openly and directly attacking the US

And you're awfully active for an account created 5 hours ago. How's that for intelligence gathering

At this point I'm wondering if your National Reconnaissance Office mission patch profile pic is supposed to be ironic or not. It shouldn't take an intelligence officer to discover literally the sentence before the one you quoted.

You wanted an example of where the accusations of rape directly led to ruined lives, and I gave you one.

Sure, in the example I gave the motive behind the accusations was racism, but the accusation was still about rape. The original commenter was pointing out that any and all accusations must be met with suspicion in order for "innocent until proven guilty" to function.

What that doesn't mean is that any and all accusations of rape should be dismissed because the accuser is a woman. There's a difference here

Should the police believe someone when they claim they've been raped and should the police investigate? Yes.

Should the police, court of law, court of public opinion believe a rape accusation purely because the accuser is a woman? No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys

Somewhat famous case, thought partially to have been a source of inspiration for a book called "To Kill a Mockingbird", somewhat famous in its own right.

Highly recommend you read it

raving lunacy of a rant

Hey now, words have meaning. Lunacy implies there's a brain there that can be in the state of "insane". That entire thing was probably shit out by a LLM which is why it makes no logical sense

I'm genuinely curious, how often does spouting off random bullshit work for you? Nothing you listed backs up your argument that the problems around AI are a result of it's infancy and first cut implementations.

Also, half of what you say is either untrue or disingenuous as all hell. "programs use unstructured jumps and were hard to follow"? What the fuck are you talking about? Please, find me a computer that didn't use something like a branch statement and didn't go in numerical sequence of instructions. I'll wait while you learn this so called "Instruction Set Standardization" of yours doesn't exist

Several states in the US have laws on the books allowing bikers to conditionally ignore stop signs, but typically to "downgrade" a stop sign to a yield sign. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

The basic premise is that because a bike is slow enough, and the stopping distance of a bike at speed is short enough, a bike can approach an intersection, make a judgment call on if they need to stop, and if they don't expect to get hit, they can cross without coming to a full stop first like a car does.

The point I was snarkily trying to make is that lining up tanks and trucks is a nonsense comparison, any point such a comparison attempts to make is based entirely on a knee jerk emotional reaction, one worthy of r/circlejerk

Even comparing kinetic energy of different vehicles is pretty silly, tanks were never designed for nor get used as battering rams, they're a mobile armored gun meant to shoot shit far away. The typical truck on the road today is meant to give suburban dads a delusional sense of masculinity, to the point of sacrificing near vehicle visibility.

One was designed to kill people far away, one kills people nearby due to operator negligence

I'm confused, how exactly is a size comparison of two vehicles meant to add anything to the conversation here? Size implies lethality?

A standard city bus is about twice as long as those tanks, so is a bus twice as problematic?