No. The Department of the Army didn 't "replace" the Department of War,, it *was* the Deparrtment of War. Same secretary (Kenneth Royale), same personnel, same everything. Only the name changed. It can trace its unbroken existence back to its founding in 1794 to the present day. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, got the Secretary of the *Navy* (James Forrestal) as its secretary, all new personnel, and was a totally new organization (with John Sullivan as Forrestal's replacement at Navy).

No, the Department of the Army still exists. It was removed from the Cabinet in 1949 but it didn't go anywhere. There was a recent kerfuffle about the Secretary of the Army leaving his position. You may have seen it in the news. The simple fact is that the Department of Defense was an all-new creation and not a renaming of anything.

Incidentally, the Department of the Army most assuredly still exists to this very day. It's not part of the Cabinet any more, but it surely exists.

The Department of War "ran the Navy" for four whole years, 1794 to 1798. During which time, *there was no Navy*, as the bankruptcy of the federal government had forced the disbanding of the old Continental Navy. By the 1940s this was all irrelevant ancient history.

"The Dept of Defense was a 1949 PR renaming of the Dept of War."

An often-repeated falsehood. The Department of War was renamed the Department of *the Army.*. The Department of Defense was a new creation to unify supervision of the US armed forces, named that because calling it the Department of War would have given the impression that the Navy was being placed under the control of the Army, which would have gone down very badly with the Navy.

"And has nothing to do with "technology" but with economics."

Because technology and economics are totally unrelated concepts that never interact with each other.

That's just a lovely bit of "Heads I win, tails you lose." If you don't complain about Trump, then obviously there's nothing wrong with him. If you do complain about Trump, then you're obsessed with him and he lives rent-free in your head.

They're Pintos!

Rereading your comment, I should clarify. "can" is not a clause, it is the main verb. The main sentence reads "I can write well". "and do" is a clause added in, which can be set off by commas (it's not required); if it is, it needs a comma before and after it.

The second comma is not part of the main sentence. It is part of the clause, which needs it to show the end of the clause. Eliminating the clause without eliminating the second comma makes as much sense as eliminating the clause without eliminating the first comma.

I can, and do write well.

"I can, and do, write well."

For great justice!

Sometimes they don't watch TikTok?

I heard that a motion was filed to rename the case "Jarndyce and Jarndyce".

Well, dark matter and dark energy are about 95% of the cosmos, so apparently so.