I worry that a major ground invasion is the least bad option available to the USA now, and the Trump administration is not capable of carrying it out.

Why does the headline claim he said something that he didn’t in fact say?

I think that most Trump voters support isolationism symbolically. They want a leader who prioritizes them rather than perceived others, but they don’t actually have a strong opinion about specific foreign policies per se. Attacking Iran does challenge that symbolism, but in the absence of direct effects on their own lives, their trust in Trump’s established “America first” reputation will go a long way.

Why is the height of a Ferris wheel on the UK citizenship test?

Well if he’s not quite alive, then he can’t be assassinated.

But for the moment if there is one country in this war that is rudderless, it is not Iran.

Ouch.

So the preexisting difference in price between CA and the rest of the USA was bigger than three wars with Iran… CA voters are a mystery to me.

Never mind about that, he changed his mind again.

After comments that seemed to suggest President Trump was looking towards an exit from his war with Iran, Trump said in a speech to Republican lawmakers in Florida that “we have won in many ways, but not enough. We go forward more determined than ever to achieve ultimate victory that will end this long-running danger once and for all.”

The enemy cannot anticipate your actions if you have no plan! No doubt Sun Tzu would have said something like that if he were American.

We’re going to end up in a situation where whatever is necessary to train AI is permitted, and the main question is whether that will be through (re)interpretation of existing law or the passage of a new law.

Well, the actual NYT article has the headline

U.S. Tomahawk Hit Naval Base Beside Iranian School, Video Shows

The school appears to be part of the same compound as the naval base. Presumably someone or something thought it was part of that base.

He’s right. Even when starting a war was a mistake, you can’t just pretend that you didn’t. Stopping unilaterally isn’t necessarily the best course of action.

I admit that the articles I’ve read are not entirely clear about the order in which things happened, but my understanding is that the Israelis were trying to sneak in and dig up the grave without being noticed, they were noticed and attacked, and they called in air support. They were clearly prepared to fight, but their mission would not have involved any fighting had it gone according to plan.

who didn’t have anything to do with it

Those people attacked them. The interesting thing is how outmatched the attackers were despite outnumbering a group that wasn’t there with the intent of fighting.

Due to the disconnect between price, supply, and demand in the Soviet Union, many things officially cost little but there wasn’t enough for everyone who wanted to buy some. This gave retail workers (and everyone else in the distribution chain) informal power: they could make sure those who did them favors got special access.

When my family came to the USA from the Soviet Union, one of the weird things about the experience for us was how friendly American retail staff were. Brighton Beach in NYC is a neighborhood with a lot of Soviet immigrants, and you can still go there and experience retail staff glaring at you because you’re creating more work for them by coming into the store.

Well, fortunately for other cities that don’t make a habit of tortious interference, the law actually does hold cities to promises that they make.

If you don’t want legal or medical advice from an AI, you can already simply not ask the AI for legal or medical advice. But I don’t want your paternalistic restrictions on what I may ask.

The argument that a city should be able to unilaterally define what is or is not a “substantial danger” as a principle of democratic government is a short-sighted one. If a city can do that, then conversely it cannot make plausible promises. A decision to that effect might be good for Oakland, given the hole that Oakland has dug itself into, but it wouldn’t be good for cities in general.

The content of the article does not match the title. It doesn’t actually talk specifically about the tech industry or claim that it is in particular difficulty.

The new position is made up and has no authority, so I think “fired” is not totally wrong.

Why did California pick such a clearly terrible way of running primaries? It could have worked with ranked-choice voting but, the way it is now, you get hilarious features like the Republican frontrunner being incentivized to have people vote for the other Republican rather than for him (because if he’s #1 and a Democrat is #2, he definitely loses the general election, but if he’s #1 and the other Republican is #2, he has about 50% odds of winning).