Apparently he does:

During a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Hegseth said he did not see any survivors in the water, saying the vessel “exploded in fire, smoke, you can’t see anything. … This is called the fog of war.”

I had to go to a different source, but here is the actual quote:

During a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Hegseth said he did not see any survivors in the water, saying the vessel “exploded in fire, smoke, you can’t see anything. … This is called the fog of war.”

So yeah, he thinks “fog of war” means literal fog…

Yeah but you usually prove those skills by having a MBA on your CV, having a conviction instead kind of proves you suck at it.

Oh we have them, they just aren’t shown in the default interface. But frontends like kbin/mbin show an upvote minus downvote number on your profile page for example.

Depends on the accused, in case of the general it would probably be a court martial. But for the Secretary of Defence I’m not sure, might be a civil court in that case. Either way I was talking about US courts deciding on this violation of international law. There never were international courts the US would obey.

I doubt any court would agree to that line of reasoning if this ever goes to trial. The real problem is the administration is just openly ignoring the courts that don’t rule in their favour. And again, Trump has pardoning power for federal crimes.

And I am willing to bet that nothing in it allows it. Not sure how that would be relevant though?

You can’t be held to a standard that didn’t apply at the time of the incident, but the standard that did apply during the incident clearly forbade it. So it doesn’t matter even if they change it now, because judgement would have to be made in the context of the rules applicable at the time. Of course Trump could just pardon whoever gets found guilty…

Yeah but they didn’t change it though, so it was forbidden under the current rules. Too late to change that.

Well if I understand where you were going with your OP and your reply correctly, you want to insinuate pro-Trump bias in the choice of headline? Because if that is the case the content of the article, plus the general accusation that the Trump administration could have acted illegally, seem to point against that. For example this is the last sentence of the first paragraph:

These operations have resulted in over 80 deaths, sparking intense criticism that the administration is conducting extrajudicial killings—or, as some critics assert, unwarranted murders—without legal justification.

So based on the article content I would consider the headline to be quoting the Trump administration, which could admittedly have been made clearer by using quotation marks around “Drug Strike” or something.

Oh yeah, not saying that anybody using the word is a racist. Just ignorant, you shouldn’t use it if you are aware of its historical context.

Ah I see, yeah I guess something like that would be possible. On the other hand it would be trivial to prove this happened even in the future as long as the government keeps a unedited copy of this repo.

I believe the point is that even if you accept the (unproven) premises of the US administration, that there were drugs on the boat and that you can be at war with a cartel, this would still make it illegal, because then it would be a war crime to bomb helpless survivors of the strike. If you don’t accept that it’s a war the strike on the boat would have been illegal in the first place, simple murder. But even under their own premises it’s a war crime.

While true, a git history is also easily protected against fabrication. Require cryptographically signed commits and prevent contributors from force-pushing to the public repo and you should be good.

In Germany there is a legally recognised form of volunteering called Ehrenamt (honorary office), mostly used by non-profit organisations. It has benefits for taxes, gaining public funding, and such. E.g. if you are the primary caretaker of an elderly family member you can get unemployment benefits without having to look for work, since it is recognised as a public good.

The petition aims to recognise work on Open Source software as such an honorary office.

Thus using “race” is biologically ambiguous and “ethnic groups” should be preferred, however it is still very well socially defined.

“Ethnic group” is an anthropological category, not a biological one. The correct biological term is “subspecies”, which Wikipedia defines as “populations that live in different areas and vary in size, shape, or other physical characteristics (morphology), but that can successfully interbreed.”

Using “race” in a social context makes sense and is far from being racist.

Given the history of its usage in that context, I have to vehemently disagree. Plus it is so ill defined that it is a useless term anyway. From Wikipedia again: “[…] various definitions exist. Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies.”

Using it invokes all the Social Darwinism and whatnot that the Nazis and others abused it for. So where is the sense in using it exactly?

That’s not Moscow, too far north-west for that. Probably Veliky Novgorod or something around there.

Edit: Found this, the one right on the map edge is very likely Bologoye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nevsky_Express_bombing

IME that meaning of “stan” is way younger than I am. I remember it just being a name. And I remember “fan” being used in the way “stan” is now, so I sometimes still use it like that.

> OldManYellingAtClouds.jpg

For the time being you will have to live with implying blind devotion when using the word “fan” to describe something other than an air circulation tool, since it was recently used in that fashion and sometimes still is. So even if you prefer the descriptive approach to linguistics this meaning is still relevant.

Side note, purely descriptive linguistics strike me as madness. I mean if the purpose of language is communication then constantly changing the definitions is kind of antithetical to that. Texts would become illegible in decades rather than centuries.

Curiously “cake” apparently comes from old Norse “kaka”, which in many languages is the word for poo-poo, but is more probably related to roundness in this instance.

You don’t have to have blind devotion to something to be a fan of it.

Fan was originally short for fanatic, so it does actually imply blind devotion. Etymologically at least.