Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Syt - Today at 08:19:47 AM

They will bend over backwards to figure out a random argument why all this doesn't apply to Democrat presidents.

#2

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 08:15:03 AM

At this point, I don't think Supreme Court decisions can be taken as precedential.  No one thinks that the holdings the Court has been announcing over the past 6 months expanding executive power will be honored if the Democrats ever retake the White House.   

#3

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Syt - Today at 08:10:18 AM

I assume the objection is to this, a straightforward violation of the First Amendment.

... but only if the Supreme Court says so.

#4

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 08:08:05 AM

Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the Defense Department for information — classified or otherwise — that he has not approved for release

I assume the objection is to this, a straightforward violation of the First Amendment. 

The good news is that we don't have to worry about $50 toilet paper at the Pentagon anymore; they use obsolete paper copies of the US Constitution for that now.

#5

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by grumbler - Today at 08:01:34 AM

I dont get it, were reporters just stumbling around the Pentagon aimlessly before?

No.  I saw a reporter maybe twice in the three years I worked there. They enter the building for interviews and meetings.  They don't hang out there waiting for something reportable to happen.

#6

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by HVC - Today at 07:58:35 AM

I dont get it, were reporters just stumbling around the Pentagon aimlessly before?

#7

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by grumbler - Today at 07:56:57 AM

I am not sure what Hegseth is so terrified will come out, but he should know that it will inevitably come out eventually.

#8

Gaming HQ / Re: Elite: Dangerous

Last post by Tamas - Today at 07:45:08 AM

I tried this game again last year (this year?) I remember.
Still doesn't click.
A true worthy sequel to Frontier is never to be.

I disagree. The biggest issue that's not going away is that unlike Frontier this has a persistent world shared by all players. That has its pluses and minuses.

But there are so many things here. Remember how in Frontier each planet would already have their system of government, security rating, population, imports and exports etc? Well same here except all these interact in a giant automatic simulation, with multiple factions potentially spanning multiple solar systems. Missions you do for them affect their strength and power which may trigger them to increase influence and go into conflict with another faction. Or heck just carry enough resources and switch a system's prosperity status. Plus there's a whole Powerplay layer above that representing the major players within each big alliance (Federation, Empire, Alliance of independents) vying for power.

Plus exploration, including planetary one as a viable income source.

Mining can has its moments but it's a bit of a grind for me.

Combat, of course.

And now you can build up your own solar systems, although doing it on your own and not with a squad if you have kids or any other commitments is just... crazy. Building my planetary port would take around 30k-ish units of various resources, so with the biggest available trading ship that's 30-ish round trips and that may very easily mean mor than two jumps per trip. So yeah that's a group activity, realistically.

But still this is an amazing game for what it is, excellent ambience. People will struggle to create a more immersive "I am a freelancer in a space opera universe" sim.

[New York Times, AP, Newsmax among news outlets who say they won't sign new Pentagon rules]

#9

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Syt - Today at 06:58:12 AM

https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-defense-department-rules-95878bce05096912887701eaa6d019c6

New York Times, AP, Newsmax among news outlets who say they won't sign new Pentagon rules

News organizations including The New York Times, The Associated Press and the conservative Newsmax television network said Monday they will not sign a Defense Department document about its new press rules, making it likely the Trump administration will evict their reporters from the Pentagon.

Those outlets say the policy threatens to punish them for routine news gathering protected by the First Amendment. The Washington Post, The Atlantic and Reuters on Monday also publicly joined the group that says it will not be signing. AP confirmed Monday afternoon that it would not sign.

"Reuters is bound by its commitment to accurate, impartial and independent news," the agency said in a statement. "We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon's new restrictions erode these fundamental values."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted by posting the Times' statement on X and adding a hand-waving emoji. His team has said that reporters who don't acknowledge the policy in writing by Tuesday must turn in badges admitting them to the Pentagon and clear out their workspaces the next day.

The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the Defense Department for information — classified or otherwise — that he has not approved for release.

Newsmax, whose on-air journalists are generally supportive of President Donald Trump's administration, said that "we believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further."

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the rules establish "common sense media procedures."

"The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is," Parnell said. "This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it's what's best for our troops and the national security of this country."

Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, "Is this because they can't roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?"

Hegseth answered, "yes." Reporters say neither of those assertions is true.

Pentagon reporters say signing the statement amounts to admitting that reporting any information that hasn't been government-approved is harming national security. "That's simply not true," said David Schulz, director of Yale University's Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.

Journalists have said they've long worn badges and don't access classified areas, nor do they report information that risks putting any Americans in harm's way.

"The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law," the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement on Monday. "There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities."

Noting that taxpayers pay nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. military, Times Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson said "the public has a right to know how the government and military are operating."

Trump has applied pressure on news organizations in several ways, with ABC News and CBS News settling lawsuits related to their coverage. Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times and Wall Street Journal and moved to choke off funding for government-run services like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

#10

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 06:06:15 AM

Norway are the ones with a glut of renewables.

P

   Given the scale of the damage it has done to the United Kingdom's reputation, the hurdles it has placed on businesses, tourists and consumers, it can seem a little eccentric to note that Brexit has also been an utterly rotten deal for the Conservative party.

It brought the premiership of David Cameron to an abrupt end and took the frontline career of George Osborne, the Tories' most brilliant strategist, down with it. The reconfiguration of British politics and voting it helped to accelerate means that the party has lost, probably for ever, the electoral coalition that helped it to win in 2015 — smaller, yes, in terms of votes gained than those of 2017 or 2019, but one largely comprised of voters with a direct self-interest in economic dynamism and an appetite for tax cuts.

And far from sending Nigel Farage into retirement once and for all, as its advocates once claimed would be the case, Brexit has put him in a position from where he could become Britain's next prime minister — potentially relegating the Conservatives to minor party status in the process.

More damagingly still, Brexit destroyed the party's relationship with the chunk of the electorate that the Conservatives will always need if they are not only to win elections but to govern effectively: successful people in the middle of their careers.

Not everyone whose journey on the Eurostar used to end with a near-frictionless arrival at St Pancras feels an emotional connection to the European project. Nor does every small business owner who no longer trades with the continent experience a pang of regret when they are reminded that the UK is no longer in the single market. But they do all experience a sense of irritation at barriers to their pleasures or their profits having been erected against their will.

One reason the successive Tory administrations from 2016 to 2024 achieved so little beyond damage control is that they traded middle-aged voters who needed little from the state for older voters who require rather more. The struggling Conservative party is now essentially one that only appeals to wealthy retirees. The animating energy, purpose and drive for a viable centre-right has to come from people who wish to become wealthy retirees, not people who already are — in other words, people who, for the most part, think that Brexit was a bad idea.

An essential condition today for entry into the upper echelons of Conservative party politics is being willing to at least pretend that you think taking Britain out of the EU was a good idea. This is a never-ending lobotomy for the Tories. It's not that there aren't any brilliant, economically successful and working-age people who still support Brexit — there are. There just aren't as many of them as there are people who hold what, until relatively recently, we'd have called "Conservative" views on economics and public policy but who think Brexit was a bad idea and aren't willing to pretend otherwise.

If you remove the already large group of people who would make excellent Tory MPs but are doing perfectly well for themselves in jobs they enjoy, and then require the remainder to believe Brexit has turned out to be a good decision, or pretend they do, your talent pool becomes very shallow indeed. The Conservatives' current approach is a bit like saying you can only fully participate in the political life of the party as long as you don't own a television — sure, you will get some good people, but not very many.

We underrate how corrosive it is to the Tories' future that they've become a party where it is an open secret that a large number of MPs first elected in 2019 or later who now claim to be long-standing opponents of EU membership, were in fact horrified by Brexit. No party can have honest and serious conversations about policy trade-offs if acknowledging the truth as you see it becomes not just an optional extra, but an active barrier to advancement for the kind of successful people who used to be the bedrock of the Conservatives in both parliament and in the country.

The party's fortunes would not be immediately transformed were their leader, Kemi Badenoch, to say that she has realised that it is incoherent to kick off one speech by praising the importance of free trade and then, a few days later, celebrate wrenching the UK out of its nearest free trading zone. But what is undeniable is that if the Tory party wants to be once more in the 21st century the party it was in the 20th — a natural home for successful people — it must again become a place in which pro-Europeans are not only welcome but can hold high office. Without that, it will be for ever defined by past glories, and not future triumphs.

https://www.ft.com/content/a65fb9b9-a955-4a5d-80dd-bce014dc1cd2


It increasingly does seem the only path forward for the tories is to really embrace being the liberal party. Certainly competing with Farage for the right wing populist position isn't working for them.