ViperMan

Yeah, that is one of the things I really admire about Europe. Their recent attempts to strip Microsoft from their tech stacks has been admirable. I went with Linux after having no previous experience with it. Once I saw what Windows 7 was going to become with Windows 8, I was over it. Windows XP and 7 were the last major versions I used on my own hardware (I skipped Vista). Windows 8/10/11(?) seem like they are becoming ever more focused on data extraction from their user base along with migrating literally everything to a SaaS model. On that topic, I understand the need for some software to be run as a service, but the model has been adapted (IMO) to realms where it serves literally no purpose other than to capture user data (for monetization) and/or place utility behind a paywall that was otherwise free or better than the current, modern offerings. See Microsoft Word/Excel/Powerpoint, etc. 99% of computer users have no need for a Windows machine. The old refrain of needing Windows because Linux couldn't run certain software like Adobe, or AutoCAD are now no longer relevant - namely because those products are now paywalled as SaaS which you need to interact with through a web browser! Even the refrain to gaming is no longer relevant as Windows gaming has declined (as I understand), and much of gaming is now done through the web anyway. 10+ years ago I bought a cheap second-hand laptop off of Ebay and installed Linux (https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/). Does all my spreadsheeting, word-processing, internet browsing, etc. Plays all the music I need it to. Whatever. It'd even game if I was in to that. Also, the computer hasn't worn out like Windows machines and Mac phones (computers) seem to strangely do every few years...weird. As far as Mac goes, that's just a proprietary skin on top of UNIX anyway. Ultimately they're beholden to the same fundamental problem that Microsoft is. Namely that they need to control access to what they see as "their" customer: i.e. they own you, and need to make sure the price to leave (or access you) is high. Hence you can't install whatever software you want, and ultimately you need to interact with the services they provide in the manner they have chosen / designed. What's worse is that most of that is invisible to users.

If it wasn't obvious, it should have been. Windows 8 was the first OS that was clearly and unambiguously designed to benefit Microsoft, not the end user. It's been nothing but the same in years since. Switched OSs many, many, many years ago at this point and couldn't be happier. No regrets. Perhaps the biggest crime of all is how embedded Microsoft has become in all layers of our society. Government, primary school, college, business, etc. It's unconscionable that the government uses a single-source end-user OS. Going forward it would be far better if the government mandated that different OS's be used by different agencies to break Microsoft's soft monopoly - ala Burger King vs McDonald's on USAF vs Navy bases.

I was reliably told years ago that Putin was on the cusp of a total and complete victory. What's going on here?

Putin's stupid because he thought he needed to do what he's doing. He's not irrational though. He felt it was necessary to keep a buffer between him and NATO, while also ensuring that Ukraine wouldn't become a major supplier of energy to Europe. It's a good rational. It just was completely unnecessary.

Yeah, door #3 is we just sit back and let the blockade do it's job / work. In short order, Iran's oil infrastructure will crumble and the crushing reality of actual economic austerity will begin to set in and will take a toll on the people and the regime of Iran. Long term, this will destabilize and delegitimize them. That will increase the likelihood of regime change, and in all honestly, the best kind of regime change since it will happen organically. What we (Trump) likely doesn't have is the balls to wait it out or sell it to the American people in a clean way. I think he tried the other day, but the message fell flat. What I think probably happens is we split the difference. We'll commit enough men and material to opening the straight and denying Iran their ability to project power, whilst simultaneously disallowing Iranian shipments through. I was right about us starting the blockade - because it was obvious. I'm not as certain about this course of action. If I was in charge, that'd be my strategy though.

Re-read what I wrote: "The LEFT has engaged in RACIAL gerrymanderring for decades." Do you not agree with ceasing the practice broadly? Or should there be racial voting blocks in this country?

First, great response. I wasn't expecting it. I don't dispute anything you put forward here. I am, however, very concerned with much of how Europe is allowed to bankroll their social utopias on the backs of American defense. That is real. When you look at what NATO can bring to the fight, much of what entire countries contribute amounts to a single fighter squadron - not nothing - but at the same time, we give them undue credit for what they are able to add to our collective defense. Holding them accountable for the level of insurance they get from us has been a proper political angle that Trump is correct to pressure. Inferior was harsh, but vassal is correct. Europe/Japan and much of the modern world is not what it is without pax americana. Trump is reasserting that, correctly. I do think the economy is shit. And structural forces are the only thing that matters. It's because of how the Federal reserve is intended to function as a central bank. It lends to the US government at below market rates enabling inflation as a means to an end to devalue government debt at the expense of W-2 employees. So yes, the economy sucks. I personally think it's going to suck for a very, very long time. We have a larger generation that is owed out-sized benefits from a smaller generation and working class. That is going to be painful for a very long time as productivity will be unable to match outlays. Tariffs? Eh. They're the flavor of the month and miniscule relative to the larger, structural issue inherent in the system. This could be a subject in its own right. I think we probably do agree a good deal. That said, the functioning of our academic system has become completely divorced from its original intent. Universities used to produce lots of science. Now, the government disallows research that would be fruitful whilst looking to fund programs and research that it thinks will serve as means to justify future spending that they likely already have earmarked, but just need some "study" to allow it to go forward. Don't miss the point I was making by latching onto the social science crisis example - the crisis is everywhere, but most pronounced in the social sciences. Broadly speaking, the government has corrupted what was once a good system. The fix is to remove nearly all funding from these entities and allow them to generate science that is actually profitable - i.e. solves real problems. On the subject of government science more broadly, I don't think I disagree with you; maybe we were talking about different things and I grabbed onto what I thought you were trying to say. That said, science is not stopped dead in its tracks...please. Fine then change how it works! The SAVE act is part of a much broader conversation in the country to address issues with voting. Which are numerous. Vote gathering, non-citizen voting, voting month, mail-in voting, and so on. I don't know what to tell you about this other than to say I could easily vote for numerous family members who once upon a time lived in the same state I live in, but no longer do. I still receive ballots for them and just tear them up. You don't see the issue. I do. The bottom line is if you can't be bothered to make even the slightest personal efforts to participate in democracy, then you shouldn't vote. If you need "help" voting, then someone else cares about your vote more than you do, and it shouldn't be counted, because it's really just serving someone else's ends at that point. I have no issue eliminating gerrymandering at large from the country. The court recently struck down Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, and they'll be forced to redraw. So will others hopefully. To be clear, that podcast also makes the point that there is no sacred right to partisan gerrymandering, either. That's the Federalist saying that. A conservative powerhouse. Never said that republicans didn't do it, but theirs is generally partisan, rather than racial. Either way, its a ridiculous practice that needs to come to an end, no matter what the intent.

Bro... Who cares what emotional response our inferiors have? Seriously? WGAF. The people you reference laughing are our dependents. Our vassals. Groups of people who have forgotten who actually makes the sausage on this planet. And you care about some chump lauging from the sidelines? Okay. Yeah the economy sucks. But why? It goes well beyond any political party or who is the president. Science stopped dead in it's tracks? By this president? Dude you're hysterical. There has been a replication crisis in science for decades. Science (TM) went off the rails ages ago due to the government inextricably grafting itself into the university system by tying funding and grants to it. Check out how much "social science" replicates...almost none. Any that does (IQ) is verboten from actually being studied for real. Climate change? Yeah. Ok. We're changing the climate. Guess what. That's all baked in. You know what is going to fix it though? Not a new tax. Not decreasing everyone's quality of life. Nope. It's going to be technology. You know who is dead-set against that though? The Left. We can't implement an actual solution because some poor people might get left behind. Or might not be able to buy Cheetos with the tax money they take from me to give to them...so they can have dignity or something. Instead, we'll get initiatives that seek to re-fortify poor people's homes against noise pollution because they tend to live in noisier areas. Under the guise of "climate justice." So don't confuse not believing in climate change with not buying into the Left's BS way of "fixing" it. They are different and separate. Voting rights? Dude, GTFO. The Left has gerrymandered the political maps in the country for decades prior to this recent spat specifically to create racial voting blocks in this country. Thankfully, that is coming to end. I know you don't believe me though. But it's true. Just look at New England. 40% republican. Not one republican representative. Doubt you would listen to something by the Federalist, but this episode provides the historical context and the solution. Bottom line: groups of people living together were supposed to be represented together. How to fix that is forcing redistricting boundaries to follow a simple mathematical relationship - the perimeter of a congressional district divided by its area must remain below a certain ratio. Fair. Color blind. Aligned with the intent of our founding. Check it out. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-virginias-twisted-gerrymander-wont-survive-judicial/id983782306?i=1000762441668 And in any case, no one has yet to make a cogent argument as to why you shouldn't need to prove citizenship to be able to vote. It's unimaginable anyone could come down on a different side of this issue, but then again, these are crazy times, and we are a divided people.

Aside from the obvious OPSEC issues, I'd be more concerned if he bet on a loss...that he was that confident, I'm impressed.

Again, this has already been addressed and answered so now we're just replaying the same song. Prices spike during conflict - we know this. The point is that things are trending in the right direction. Not getting worse. You're ignoring that. They still have ballistic missiles? Ok, why aren't they using them then? Why aren't they fighting with everything they've got to stop us from collapsing their economy and regime? If they're so strong, they'd be striking back - that they're not is the tell. If they thought they had a shot militarily, they'd be taking it. They're calling "uncle" is what it is. But you're ignoring that. The mullahs rule Iran? Says you. Currently it seems to me that there is a split developing between elements of the IRGC and the foreign ministry - as evidenced by Iranian authorities saying the straight is open, whilst elements of their "military" fire on ships. Seems like some sort of fracture may be presently developing internally. But what do I know? I'm only reading the news. You're ignoring that. What is the alternative history you'd like to have seen play out? You won't articulate it. You will reference past agreements which weren't working (October 7th anyone?), but point at it as if it were succeeding. You ignore that. By my calculus, we're knocking down foreign policy dominoes one after another. You clearly believe in the Obama/Jake Sullivan-style approach to foreign policy. I don't. That approach was never feasible and has been fully discredited. I get it. You don't like this war. Strange considering it's gone quite well given previous estimates as to how "difficult" an Iranian conflict would be. Do you not see them as our adversary? Do you not see the utility and sometimes necessary use of military force? That's what it seems like to me. You strike me as someone who'd rather be a politician than a soldier. What about this: what conflicts in the past, which we have engaged in did you agree or disagree with? You can put a simple +/- if you think our participation was good or bad on the whole. I just don't think you believe in just war. Bosnia? Desert Storm? Iraq II? Afghanistan? Libya? Korea? Somalia? You don't even need to do that. Just give a little expository about any modern conflict you think we were justified in our intervention. See, I'm beginning to suspect that you just don't believe in war as a means to an end. You're ignoring too many positives for it to be anything except that. That we have a current one going on is just the latest thing you get to come onto the internet and vent your butt hurt about.

A trinket to help them recover from the nearly $300B dollar loss they've suffered over the last 6 weeks of fighting? Not an attempt to buy them off. Encouragement to adhere to the dollar system? Who knows. Now, I'm not fully on board with handing them cash at this juncture, but it's a far cry from allowing them to hold us ransom while they thumb their nose at the previous "deal." Anyway. I get the gimmick being employed: point at something that looks the same (money going to Iran). Call it the same. Declare hypocrisy. Proceed to mock. Shallow, but fun I guess?

The irony of you ignoring the signals all around you to pin this on...me? Is not lost. I can only imagine the tune you'd be singing if the stock market was crashing, if shipping was still halted, and if oil were approaching $200. But you can't point to any of those things, so you make up some thing in your head that "I" speak for the world? LOL, no. I'm just looking at the signals the world is sending. Every one this morning is positive (for us). Merely pointing out that you're (still) ignoring them. Leaving that aside, you claim to know things that are unknowable. Iran has had an internet blackout for the entire conflict, yet you state that they're more aligned with the regime than ever? M'kay. But whatever. You're impermeable to facts and unable to even observe, it seems. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. I just don't understand the point of coming on here and attempting to argue a position without bringing any facts, novel interpretations, or even re-interpretations of things that other posters may say, but which you disagree with because <reasons>. You've got none of that. You're not arguing, you're just trolling.

Collectively, the world thinks we're winning.

DOW up. SP 500 up. Oil plunging. Straight open. Iran says it's open. The war is arguing its own merits. All that info is public and on every major outlet. No clearance required.

Please quote me where I stated that prices wouldn't be affected. I'll wait. In any case, what this really does is put the US squarely in the driver's seat as to who is the main supplier of oil in the world. That is a great position to be in. I'm not sure, but this is a good question and an avenue to explore. Maybe there's something there to be had? I bet China's ambitions WRT Taiwan have been cut down to size. They would struggle mightily if they attempted to conduct large scale military operations while the US has a stranglehold on the global oil supply. A few well-placed cruise missiles into pipelines connecting Russia and China and they're in the hurt locker. Risk is the nature of military operations. I'm not aware they're being ranged by anything Iranian, however. I'm also confident that the Navy knows what it's doing here. Again, do you think we're going about this like we did in Desert Storm or Iraq? I don't think that's our strategy. I never said anything about hearts and minds or democracy. Like I've stated numerous other times, I think it's best we allow time to work on the culture and see what happens organically. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown we don't know what we're doing with regard to nation-building. Best we stick to destroying governments. I will note though, that you continue to sidestep or otherwise avoid the relevant facts I've pointed out, namely that Iran is far more dependent on the straight than we are. Do you not want to address the implications of that? Too much to wrestle with? Doesn't fit into the mental model you've constructed? Anyway, everything you addressed above is either misattributed to something you 'think' I would say, or perhaps something you think someone like me would say. In other words, it was all projection. So here is what I think: It doesn't matter what happens in the short term to Iran's government. In the end it will be changed for better or worse. I don't care which way it goes. I only care that their military capability has been diminished and their ability to project power going forward declines. Both of those things have happened and will continue to happen. The fact that Iran no longer has the initiative to sell oil to illicit customers puts the ball squarely back in their court as to the next move. I'll note that almost immediately after we closed the straight, suggestions of 'talks' between the two parties began again. Thus, even though you constructed your own strawman to beat up, I at least give you an 'e' for effort for posting without reference to something Trump said. That, alone, is a move in the right direction.