It isn't even the root of the indo-european languages and the Indo-European languages are just one of many language families around the world.
Source I am from Austria. :)
That's inherent to the idea of theft. We judge thieves based on their thefts.
It's irrelevant if they also happen to have a bunch of stuff they didn't steal.
A few stolen artifacts corrupt the legitimacy of the entire exhibit.
I don't think it would even have to go that far.
It's mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.
Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, "Every time X happens, we'll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate." That's not much and it might not even change Israel's behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.
In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she's fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.
I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.
That suggests that she's just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She's a problem for Democrats because there's an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don't vote Green.
My question was more along the lines of the "(not so) the great (wo)man" hypothesis.
Let's imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?
Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we'd likely just get someone who's functionally equivalent.
Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?
As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.
The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.
Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein's replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?
I pulled this same thing in college. I was a CS major in the late 90's and I took a class from the writing department on changing discourse in a new digital era.
The professor was really good at literary analysis and knew next to nothing about computers. He was spot on that big changes were afoot but he was as wrong as anyone else on what those changes were (spoiler: we all thought we would have an alternate universe in Cyberspace TM).
We had the option of creating a website as our final project and we realized that if we just put in every possible feature we'd get an A. Animated backgrounds? Moving fonts? Music? A goofy mouse pointer? No feature was too dumb. If it was something you couldn't do on a piece of paper, we added it to our website.
We got our A. It was a dirty A but we took it.
If we're just talking math, triangles can be defined in terms of 3-element subsets of all 3 (A)ngles and 3 (S)ides:
SSS - unique
SAS - unique
ASS - may be unique depending on the lengths of the sides
ASA - unique
SAA - unique
AAA - infinite solutions
Maybe someone cleverer than me can figure out how that maps on to love and gender.
It kinda looks like your arguing that voting doesn’t work.
Maybe.
Kessler Syndrome doesn't impact the ability to produce or launch satellites.
It impacts the ability of satellites to function in orbit but it's not a fixed limit.
Humans have a pretty good track record of developing technologies that break through insurmountable theoretical barriers.
The original article said the Navy hadn't provided all the details.
It looks like those 15+ people included at least one person who should have been monitoring for such things and a bunch of people who wanted to follow sports.
They didn't give the password to most of the crew and they tried to keep the commanding officers in the dark. It sounds like everyone involved faced disciplinary action.
Those chiefs and senior chiefs who used, paid for, helped hide or knew about the system were given administrative nonjudicial punishment at commodore’s mast, according to the investigation.
It looks like that's an administrative process. https://jagdefense.com/practice-areas/non-judicial-punishmentarticle-15/ Potential penalties are listed near the bottom.
The original article goes into more detail https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/03/how-navy-chiefs-conspired-to-get-themselves-illegal-warship-wi-fi/
It sounds like there were over 15 people in on the scheme. At some point people noticed that there was some wi-fi network called "STINKY" and rumors started circulating about it. It took a while for those rumors to reach senior command. Then they changed the name to make it look like a printer, which further delayed the investigation.
It doesn't look like they actually scanned for the access point. I suspect that's because it would be hard on a ship. All the metal would reflect signals and give you a ton of false readings.
They only eventually found it when a technician was installing an authorized system (Starshield seems to be the version of Starlink approved for military use) and they discovered the unauthorized Starlink equipment.
The Starlink receivers have gotten fairly small. It seems like that was pretty easy to hide among all the other electronics on the ship.
The original article says there were over 15 people involved https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/03/how-navy-chiefs-conspired-to-get-themselves-illegal-warship-wi-fi/
With that many people, it's only a matter of time before someone spills the beans.
There are several steps they could have taken to make it much harder to discover. I expect more and more people will take those steps and we'll never hear about it.
We're likely to see a variant of Moore's law when it comes to satellites. Launch costs will keep going down. Right now we have Starlink with a working satellite internet system and China with a nascent one. As the costs come down we'll likely see more and more countries, companies, organizations and individuals will be able to deploy their own systems.
A government would need to negotiate with every provider to get them to block signals over their country. Jamming is always hard. You could theoretically jam all communications or communications on certain frequency bands but it's not clear how you would selectively jam satellite internet.
There's a much bigger story here.
Think about how hard it was to discover this access point. Even after it was reported and there was a known wi-fi network and the access point was known to be on a single ship, it took the Navy months to find it.
Starlink devices are cheap and it will be nearly impossible to detect them at scale. That means that anyone can get around censors. If the user turns off wi-fi, they'll be nearly impossible to detect. If they leave wi-fi on in an area with a lot of wi-fi networks it will also be nearly impossible to detect. A random farmer could have Starlink in their hut. A dissident (of any nation) could hide the dish behind their toilet.
As competing networks are launched, users will be able to choose from the least restricted network for any given topic.
Yes and emergent behavior goes both ways. Organizations have many properties that the individuals they're made up of don't have and they lack many properties that individuals have. Organizations don't have feelings. Even in the rare cases when the feelings of the people in those organizations are homogeneous, the organizations almost never manifest those feelings without significant alterations.
Are you seriously comparing Joe Rogan with NATO strategists?
There's a bit more to it than that.
NATO is a strategic alliance lead by the US. NATO doesn't have any feelings and isn't pleased or displeased about anything. Instead it generally does whatever is the US believes is most strategically advantageous.
Those strategist are typically smart people who listen to all kinds of things. They're definitely careful about what they say though and won't go around promoting information they don't want suppressed.
This is just insane. No normal person would doubt that arms shipments are a military subsidy.
Reply or not. I'm blocking you.