Ok, you're an asshole for completely ignoring the links in this post after I went to all the trouble of finding them for you. Your sig definitely applies to you, and you know nothing about drones.

Cheap drone defense is here.

We demand gold plated enshittification!

Biden was unwilling to give sufficient weapons to Ukraine because he was afraid of nukes. Ukraine didn't trust America either.

Right now, neither side has sufficient drones defense. Over the next year or so, Ukraine will build up their own drone/missile defenses (I haven't heard of Russia working on this, but eventually they will). In the mean time, Ukraine is sharply focused on building air superiority. In two or three years when they achieve that, the war will end.

Rice is grown in northern California, where water is less of an issue.

It's true that market inefficiencies are an issue here.

Sometimes you want to prioritize agriculture over an efficient market. If you mess it up, people die. Many other regulations are the same way: they alter the free market. It's illegal to efficiently sell your services as a hitman, no matter how profitably.

Neither the Ukrainian army nor the Russian army can perform maneuver warfare. You don't need air superiority but you do need to be able to stand off the enemy air support.

No one has enough troops to man the trenches adequately. That is why the mobile army army will win: they attack where the enemy isn't. The mobile army will crash through the trenches like a blitzkreig through the Maginot Line.

Cheap drone defenses are here. If you don't have them, you will lose as quickly as Venezuela. Ultimately they're just a smart form of artillery.

Not likely. As long as the person isn't entertaining like a reality TV star, they will lose to the person who is a reality TV star.

But we have a gulf of America.

To begin with, only insane militaries fight trench wars. Maneuver warfare is much more effective.

Tell me more about this 12%

Waterworld was right up there. Unless you liked it, then it was great of course.

I did not expect the Artemis program to ever accomplish anything.

Apparently the lunar landing is already planned for 2027. I got distracted between all the renaming the gulf of america and dictator kidnappings.

There is no law like that.

If you want to know something, the burden is on you to find out. You can try to assign it to someone else (which is what you have done), but if they don't rise to the occasion, it doesn't mean they are wrong, it means you don't know the answer.

If you say, "The burden of proof is on you!" and they roll their eyes and walk away, it doesn't mean you are right or they are right. It means the issue is undecided.

In the real world, the burden of proof is on the person who cares. If you don't want to know the answer, then you never will (no matter how much you complain about burden of proof).

in rhetoric/oratory, both sides (or just the speaker) are trying to convince the audience, so the situation is different. In that case, very practically, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to convince the audience (in a reductionist way, we could say the audience accepts the null hypothesis by default).

In most internet discussions, the situation is different. Telling someone "the burden of proof is on you" is just a lazy/casual way of saying, "I don't believe you."