kcplate

7 ms·

91.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Wow that seems really strange to me to bring up that body count as some sort of guilt trip mechanism in your criticism. But if we are going to play that game, how about we also list how many Danish and US soldiers died in Europe during WW2
92.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> Office Space is a parable about a software developer who doesn’t want to be promoted beyond his core competency. I always thought Lumberg gets a somewhat un-derserved bad rap in that flick. He is characterized as the villain and of co
93.
by kcplate 9mo ago
You are calling someone “untrustworthy” who by their actions so far…hasn’t been. Rhetoric is just words . Not abiding by the terms of your treaty, intentionally…is action . So your analogy should probably be rewritten to be more like
94.
by kcplate 9mo ago
I am just trying to clarify exactly what actions you find untrustworthy among principals involved in a treaty. Regarding spending vs funding as it relates to war, I would seriously like you to try and explain the distinction. I don’t think
95.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> What's the point of a defense treaty with a partner that has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy? Some NATO member states until recently were actively avoiding meeting their defense spending commitments as agreed
96.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> We've been actively telling and showing our allies that we're their enemy In my opinion that is an exaggeration. Trump has certainly been pressing US interests (as he sees them) and sometimes those interests may not fully al
97.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> What kind of deal do you imagine? No idea, but Greenland fits in this renewal of the Monroe Doctrine, so my guess is something sort of deal where US has more influence there than it does now, perhaps as a protectorate, but falls short
98.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> When a bully is threatening you, the very worst thing you can do is to give in to the bully Agreed in principle, but in this case there are two bullies to worry about which changes that equation. You can choose to align with the bigger
99.
by kcplate 9mo ago
We will see. I think the argument of “it’s not ours to give but we will fight to not give it up” is a little odd. NATO troops in Greenland as a “cost deterrent” is odd too. A NATO civil war where its all against the US, immediately your
100.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Not too many of those examples with only 57k people where 99% of them live within 10 miles of the coast.
101.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Alternative? You take the money and realize that you are not really going to be under a hostile nation at all, you achieved a better benefactor, thats all. That you will be likely be a lot like Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. A
102.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Because we contribute $980B a year in NATO funding and Denmark contributes $10B Would you want essentially your continent’s defense budget reduced by two thirds?
103.
by kcplate 9mo ago
I just can’t imagine NATO countries not strongly pressuring Denmark to make a deal before any sort of military action was even close to actually happening. And knowing Trump, it might not take US ownership either, it might just come down t
104.
by kcplate 9mo ago
The numbers work against your idea in a huge way. - There are only 57k people Greenland. A portion (6%) of which are already friendly to the idea of joining the US, the undecideds are 9%. - How many converts to the deal would you get if yo
105.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> I heard a bit of very similar chatter about college admissions back in the day. “Maybe I would have had a shot if I was Asian.” Etc. I’m not sure you can really say this was an urban legend, as there was a number of court cases regardi
106.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Well, I can’t speak to that with enough confidence to say it was “not a thing”, but I never saw that sort of thing in the eighties. Although, it would not necessarily be unusual for a manager to be that blunt and open at that time without
107.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> Why would management even say such a thing and expose themselves to a lawsuit? The 1980s were not the 2020s. I can probably drop a half dozen working anecdotes from that time that would blow your mind…on all sorts of things.
108.
by kcplate 9mo ago
This is the first UX issue I have seen since moving to MacOS 26 that I have been able to reliably recreate and haven’t been able to just attribute to a subjective opinion. I never knew about before this post mainly because any window resiz
109.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> We are all quite fortunate that the founding fathers of our country did not think like you. Ironic that you think that when all through this thread I have suggested to people that were upset with how this works that the best way for th
110.
by kcplate 9mo ago
I realize this is difficult for people on this thread to accept, but unless you are someone selected for a jury evaluating this case your opinion, my opinion, the half dozen or more others opinions commenting about this situation on this th
111.
by kcplate 9mo ago
This conversation is not productive. This woman’s death was not about free speech and it’s not about Trump. It’s about decisions and actions that she made and the agent made in their interaction. There will be legal accountability perform
112.
by kcplate 9mo ago
In the early 90s I had a new department director who would bring a kitchen timer to every meeting. Meetings started on precisely on time and the timer was set to 22 minutes. When that bell rung, you could finish the thought, but the meeti
113.
by kcplate 9mo ago
I think there is definitely evidence now that makes it pretty clear that those two women were specifically in that situation and area to intentionally interfere and antagonize ICE. The driver ignored direct orders to exit the vehicle and c
114.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> I guess I'm going to have to break down and just watch this woman be executed over and over to see for myself. Just like a jury will have to do should this come to trial. The act of judging someone for a crime often means you have
115.
by kcplate 9mo ago
ICE has had a press conference and explained why their agents approached the car and wanted to detain that driver. They are claiming obstruction of their operations (18 U.S.C. § 111). It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think, only
116.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Enemies? You should probably not have stopped reading after “my vote”. You could have read further to the point where I described only voting GOP candidate once in the last 15 years…and only then because I was voting against his opponent w
117.
by kcplate 9mo ago
You are ascribing a hell of a lot of motivation to me just for stating common and frankly well known facts about whether or not LEOs can detain people. If you don’t like the way the law works, do something to change it, don’t just pontifica
118.
by kcplate 9mo ago
> What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in
119.
by kcplate 9mo ago
Yes, the fourth amendment exists. Yes, law enforcement officers can detain you if they’d have reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, or about to commit . (That last bit I italicized you might want to read again, because it’s
120.
by kcplate 9mo ago
There is no more need for me to comment on this any further save this: As I predicted, additional footage is now emerging that is showing her actions well prior to the shooting, people coming out who knew her and are describing her connecti

More ›