"That article is about Taiwan," -- War is war. "I don't think the US could "conquer" China." -- No because China has nukes. "If they could pull it off swiftly enough, I think it'd be successful." -- No because China is weaker than Russia, and Taiwan is much stronger than Ukraine. Taiwan is a porcupine on an island.

This is interesting to me, why do you think the US won't react? Public opinion seems to favor it helping Taiwan, and Trump seems to have supported Taiwan from the beginning.

There's no required format for what a deletion request looks like. It can be verbal, even. https://docs.maptiler.com/guid...

There are laser weapons being used on battlefields or in armies around the world:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3) https://www.navytimes.com/news...

They have limitations and aren't as great as other weapons, but they are actually cheap to fire.

You think China is threatening to invade Taiwan because they want to defend their country? Do you also think China is invading Bhutan to defend their country, or is that just an inconvenient fact you'd like to ignore?

It's too easy to confuse "what I want" with "what is real."

I can see that you have no idea. That is obvious.

Your point is that it would be foolish for China to go to war (assuming they don't win). This article lists a lot of reasons why it would be a bad idea, and I agree. It would be a huge risk for China to attack Taiwan, and not a prudent course of action.

Will they be prudent?

What you're saying is that you like the conspiracy theory because it affirms your confirmation bias. You're willing to give poor quality evidence a pass when you agree with it.

Logic fail.

I think you are confused on the meaning of the word "news." Hint: it contains the word "new."

Pat Gelsinger tried to preserve as much of Intel as possible, even asking people to come out of retirement. Well, now the regular Wall Street managers have arrived to wring Intel out of the last drops of money.

And next year it will be even higher. A new record? Yes. News? Not really.

One hit wonder. Decent song.

The precedent was set in an earlier case, and the precedent is that "data transfer can be considered property." That is, if Google is found to be 'stealing' data (ie, using cell phone resources that the user gets charged for), then they can be held liable for that.

The jury trial in this case found that Google was "stealing" through transferring (ie, giving the user a higher cell phone bill), but that was a question of fact determined by a jury, so it doesn't set a precedent on questions of law. There's nothing magical under the law about transferring data while the phone is idle, but the lawyers managed to convince the jury that it causes harm, and Google's lawyers failed.

This article has a lot more detail: https://www.reuters.com/legal/...

Sounds like a CCPA or GDPR privacy lawsuit should be coming up next, since they aren't actually deleting personal data when requested, they are only pretending to delete it.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.