I love that they added a separate line item for number of submarines killed. LOL.

… Ok, fair. 11,000 years was the wrong cut-off date. 12 - 13,000 years would have illustrated my point better.

Not even anywhere near that long. There have been humans for probably more than 200,000 years. Probably more. It gets confusing when you go back that far. But our written history only accounts for maybe 10,000 of those years. So 5% of total human history, if we take the minimum estimate of what it takes for us to be human. We have no evidence to support the fact that human advancement even lasts as long as written history. I mean, shit… the Romans had central heating and cement, and then they died out and we forgot how to do those things for 1,000 years. Our knowledge, and the acquisition of same is not exactly linear. Lots of fits and starts over the course of the various human civilizations that have occurred.

What happened 11,000 years ago? I mean, we’ve got some pottery fragments. Other than that, ???

Depends on your definition of “long-term”. The biggest accomplishments of Man have been acknowledged for maybe 10,000 years at the very extreme limits. 10,000 years is not even a drop in the bucket of geological or celestial time. So it very much depends on your perspective.

'Cause I’m drunk on a Thursday (Friday very early in the morning), and I’ve lost control of my life.

MLA format would be something like this:

Maneuver, The Picard. The Delusion. Picard, 2023.

Then, in your paper, to reference it, just write “(Maneuver 2023)”.

I love this book! I first read it, I don’t know, maybe 20 years ago, back when Pargrin (he went by David Wong then) posted one chapter of it at a time on his website. A few years after he got it published, Don Coscarelli (director; does mostly indie movies including the “Phantasm” series) read the book, flipped out about it, and decided to buy the rights to the story and make it into a movie. It’s a pretty great adaptation, too! I’d rate it as mostly faithful to the source material. It’s got Paul Giamatti, Clancy Brown, and Doug Jones in it.

Anyway, if you like JDATE, you should check out Coscarelli’s movie of the same name. And also read the rest of the books in the series (book 4 was published about a year ago). And if you like the movie, you should also check out another Coscarelli classic, “Bubba Ho-Tep”, starring Bruce Campbell as Elvis.

I mean, that’s just realpolitik. It’s more advantageous for Ukraine to have Russian nazis attacking Russia than it is to denouce them and deprive them of an operating base. Ultimately, the Russian Volunteer Corps’ interests are aligned with Ukraine’s interests in that they both want to depose Putin. As odious as it is, it’s the way global politics are done.

My bad! Another classic. Mel Brooks just does not miss.

Is it fair to say that Mel Brooks movies are uncommon now? Have they gotten old enough that people today are generally ignorant of them? If so, “Blazing Saddles”, “History of the World: Part 1”, “Young Frankenstein”, and “Spaceballs” are incredibly worthy of a watch.

No. They denied that a drone hit them. To deny that something is an attack, you have to first admit that something happened that could be interpreted as an attack. Like a drone hitting your soil. They denied that that happened.

Do you just not understand what you’re reading? Is that the problem? You said: “keywords means of attack”, which makes me think that you think that “means of attack” is somehow a signifier for your point. Which, it’s not. You just don’t understand what that means.

“Means of attack” in this case means a drone. If Ukraine had claimed that Russia accidentally hit Romanian territory with a missile, then “means of attack” would be a missile.

The full sentence, then, with translation (since you apparently don’t understand what it means), is:

“At no time did Russia’s means of attack [drone] generate direct military threats [cause damage, or impact, or explode] on Romanian national territory or waters. [within Romanian borders]”

Which is saying the exact same thing that the pithy one line summary from the article said above this quote:

The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

Romania denied that a drone hit them. End of story.

What are you even talking about? You said that the Romanian government said it wasn’t intentional, not that it didn’t happen. I then linked you to a direct quote from them saying it didn’t happen. They categorically denied that it happened. Why the hell are you still arguing?

Incorrect. The position of the Romanian government was very much that the first drone didn’t hit them:

The Romanian Defence Ministry said Romania was not hit.

“The ministry of defence categorically denies information from the public space regarding a so-called overnight situation during which Russian drones would have fallen in Romania’s national territory,” it said.

“At no time did Russia’s means of attack generate direct military threats on Romanian national territory or waters.”

Wonder if Klaus feels like an idiot for flat out denying that a drone hit Romania despite the available evidence. Maybe he thought that if he just pretended hard enough, he wouldn’t have to deal with it.

It’s a fool’s errand to try to make sense of the US justice system. One of the main problems is that there are so many laws, each with their own individual sentencing guidelines or suggested financial penalties for breaking them. The police are in charge of enforcing the laws (and ruining random people’s lives as a little treat), the courts are occasionally in charge of making sure that the laws comport with the constitution, and the legislators in a given area make laws for their area. But nobody is in charge of sorting everything and making sure that all of the laws on the books make sense with each other. Or that the sentencing guidelines are sane and reflect a certain set of values. It’s a fucking mess.

So, when you have a case like serial rapist Danny Masterson, you can’t really compare it with a case for anti-masturbation, brown white supremacist Enrique Tarrio. Different sets of people with different goals and beliefs wrote the laws against rape and sedition, and nobody has ever taken the time to make sure they are in the right places on the punishment scale.

WTF is up with all the NSFW tags, and the massive ChatGPT-like spam?

I think that, in the moment, online arguments can feel extremely real and heated. But, then you go out and do other things, and it becomes less and less important over time.

Of course, then you come back and find a notification from one of those morons you’ve been arguing with, and then you’re right back in it. So I guess just practice? Like, just keep reminding yourself that it doesn’t actually matter, even if it feels like it does.

Also, shrooms help. I remember I got into a heated snit with some idiot online an hour or so before eating a bunch of caps. Then, when I was trying to explain what the argument was about to one of my friends, I couldn’t finish because hearing myself explain it became apparent just how ridiculous the entire thing was. I think psychedelics just give you perspective that you’re lacking in your normal day-to-day life.

I saw a loaf of Rosemary Focaccia on sale the other day, and it occurred to me that “Rosemary Focaccia” is a great drag name.

Irina is 68 and Republican

Fucking shocker.