Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: I'm thinking propaganda (Score 1) 204

Yes, we see some humans aren't nice at all and try to bully everyone, hiding behind a nuclear umbrella and giving an example of their lookalikes worldwide.

We also see how they end up with a smashed and badly blooded nose even when they think they are very powerful, like Putin in Ukraine.

Imagine what it is like, losing the war to a cruel regime of people you despise as weak and just when you thought you hold all the cards and won all the battles...

Unconscionable!

Comment Re:More from the "never happened" department (Score 2) 204

The biggest supporters of the ayatollah, putin and the corrupt Gulf monarchies and other dictatorial powers are the MAGA morons and trumptards like yourself.

The policies that your chieftain helps legitimize are the policies that those dictators hope are the "international law".

Comment Re:I'm thinking propaganda (Score 1) 204

You don't want "fissile material" for a dirty bomb because it is useless, these are typically low-intensity alpha emitters.

You want radioactive waste. It is a by-product of fission and fusion and arises naturally when a nuke is used, if the nuke is configured that way. But this is a wasteful use of the nuke, because instead of it being extremely destructive over a very large area in a short time, it becomes moderately destructive over a much smaller area for a very long time, which sometimes may hamper you more than your enemy.

So your best option is the "waste" from a nuclear reactor, but this is also less than optimal, because a lot of it isn't radioactive, you do have to transport it while it is most dangerous, as it's hot hot and radioactive hot. It has to move quickly because its most dangerous components decay fast with time. Once delivered, you have to spread it efficiently, which isn't easy either.

So yeah, it is the least efficient way to use nuclear material.

Comment More from the "never happened" department (Score 3, Interesting) 204

After the fail of operation Epstein Fury, we'll be getting hundreds of "feel-good" bullshit stories.

In reality, the stupid war of aggression strengthened the regime in Iran and will likely provide them with another source of income, the Hormuz Straits tax, that they did not collect before that.

A trumpistani move that is even more stupid than the tariff trade war with the world.

Comment Re: I think it would be a good idea.. (Score 1) 118

I notice that you build large strawmen (e.g. "the ayatollahs you support") but you have nothing to say about the multi-billionaire war criminals that you actually support making "deals" with dictators and drug cartel leaders:

https://ofac.treasury.gov/rece...

LOL.

Comment Re: I think it would be a good idea.. (Score 1) 118

hyperpartisan tinfoil-hat dumbfuckery,

Yes, tinfoil-hat dumbfuckery. Like Alan Greenspan, for example.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Other people, too, notably CENTCOM's Gen. John Abizaid: "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that", Chuck Hagel: "People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are", etc.

Quoted, for example, here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/0...

Of course the opinion of a slashdot anonymous poster, prescient and more deeply involved than these people, takes precedence :)

But plundering Iraq's oil won't be among them,

Indeed. And the only reason is that the plan failed, because the US companies found they would be liable for profiting from it under US law. So they declined.

And of course this failed plan has been the major point of criticism of the Iraqi campaign by don the buffoon. I won't even look for references, he was crying about "why we didn't take iraqi oil are well-known", although you'll probably deny them.

Telling me it isn't about oil against literally a mountain of evidence it is is plainly ridiculous.

But so are you in your MAGA-like patriotic fervor.

Comment Re: AI doesn't lie. (Score 1) 100

Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions.

The executives at google define the policy, the technical crew implement it. The policy is "descriptive neutrality", which is roughly equal to the "fair and balanced" approach of Fox News, with a slight push for normalizing the "official position".

So, while technical decision (how to implement a policy) are not a concern of the executives, setting the policy (what to implement) most definitely is.

The point being that the "descriptive neutrality" with a preference for the "official side" is a thing, which you can easily test yourself - thankfully, the current administration has provided a number of test cases where it diverges sharply from reality, science and common sense.

The default answer of any model will very likely normalize this "official" stance AND push it as a first choice, which influences most users, as is the goal of the policy.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know that feeling when you're leaning back on a stool and it starts to tip over? Well, that's how I feel all the time. -- Steven Wright

Working...