TehLaser
@tehlaser.bsky.social
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
Disagree. If a criminal kills multiple people, but one’s easier to prove, you can convict the serial killer on that one. That doesn’t mean the harder-to-prove murder wasn’t murder.
December 6, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Disagree. If a criminal kills multiple people, but one’s easier to prove, you can convict the serial killer on that one. That doesn’t mean the harder-to-prove murder wasn’t murder.
I suspect they’re framing it this way, especially with that “should” in there, because they intend to claim that everyone else “wants” the destruction of America. Especially democrats and the courts.
December 5, 2025 at 7:56 PM
I suspect they’re framing it this way, especially with that “should” in there, because they intend to claim that everyone else “wants” the destruction of America. Especially democrats and the courts.
Sure. But the point is the second is definitely illegal, zero question, even if everything the administration claims about the facts and the law were true. It’d be a crime even if Congress had declared war.
If a defendant commits two crimes, and one of them is easier to prove, focus on that one.
If a defendant commits two crimes, and one of them is easier to prove, focus on that one.
December 4, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Sure. But the point is the second is definitely illegal, zero question, even if everything the administration claims about the facts and the law were true. It’d be a crime even if Congress had declared war.
If a defendant commits two crimes, and one of them is easier to prove, focus on that one.
If a defendant commits two crimes, and one of them is easier to prove, focus on that one.
Because even if they were members of a terrorist group, and even if they could be considered armed combatants, and even if they were valid targets and even if the UCMJ applies and EVEN IF the first strike was somehow legal, the second strike is STILL a capitol offense we used to execute people for.
December 4, 2025 at 2:22 AM
Because even if they were members of a terrorist group, and even if they could be considered armed combatants, and even if they were valid targets and even if the UCMJ applies and EVEN IF the first strike was somehow legal, the second strike is STILL a capitol offense we used to execute people for.
Bah. Uploads, not upgrades. My kingdom for an edit button.
December 1, 2025 at 8:54 PM
Bah. Uploads, not upgrades. My kingdom for an edit button.
I swear Tay, in terms of raw idea to word ratio, nobody’s doing it like you.
December 1, 2025 at 8:53 PM
I swear Tay, in terms of raw idea to word ratio, nobody’s doing it like you.
The first few uploads would likely suffer immensely. The first *successful* upgrades might just rule the galaxy. Interesting.
December 1, 2025 at 8:52 PM
The first few uploads would likely suffer immensely. The first *successful* upgrades might just rule the galaxy. Interesting.
Guess I’m just a dove and you aren’t. Not much more to be gained here. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
December 1, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Guess I’m just a dove and you aren’t. Not much more to be gained here. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Right. But if they *can’t* deescalate, because they lack the flexibility of response, it’s in our best interest to exercise restraint. We’re the only ones who can.
I’m not saying we don’t respond to provocations at all. I’m saying we need to be careful and measured.
I’m not saying we don’t respond to provocations at all. I’m saying we need to be careful and measured.
December 1, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Right. But if they *can’t* deescalate, because they lack the flexibility of response, it’s in our best interest to exercise restraint. We’re the only ones who can.
I’m not saying we don’t respond to provocations at all. I’m saying we need to be careful and measured.
I’m not saying we don’t respond to provocations at all. I’m saying we need to be careful and measured.
The problem, as I see it, is that what we see as “imposing costs,” they see as escalation.
And worse, because they have fewer options than we do, they’re almost forced to double-down and impose even more severe “costs” back on us. Hence the spiral.
And worse, because they have fewer options than we do, they’re almost forced to double-down and impose even more severe “costs” back on us. Hence the spiral.
December 1, 2025 at 4:59 PM
The problem, as I see it, is that what we see as “imposing costs,” they see as escalation.
And worse, because they have fewer options than we do, they’re almost forced to double-down and impose even more severe “costs” back on us. Hence the spiral.
And worse, because they have fewer options than we do, they’re almost forced to double-down and impose even more severe “costs” back on us. Hence the spiral.
Signed up for the patreon in anticipation of this one. Honestly should’a done it sooner.
November 30, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Signed up for the patreon in anticipation of this one. Honestly should’a done it sooner.
Heh, I don’t even know *which* Situation Room BS you mean. There were a few.
November 30, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Heh, I don’t even know *which* Situation Room BS you mean. There were a few.
The “even if this one isn’t theirs, our adversaries will see us get hit and try to wipe us out while we’re weakened, we need to launch ‘first’” argument was a new one for me. Sounds like something Rand would’ve come up with though.
November 30, 2025 at 8:45 PM
The “even if this one isn’t theirs, our adversaries will see us get hit and try to wipe us out while we’re weakened, we need to launch ‘first’” argument was a new one for me. Sounds like something Rand would’ve come up with though.
God those things hurt.
November 22, 2025 at 3:19 PM
God those things hurt.
You mean the elections? How so?
November 5, 2025 at 3:47 PM
You mean the elections? How so?
I’ll say something then. SNAP (and WIC) lifted me out of poverty 20-something years ago. We should feed people.
The restrictions f’n suck though. I suspect their primary purpose was to induce embarrassment, hold up the line, and make the people in line behind you hate you for being poor.
The restrictions f’n suck though. I suspect their primary purpose was to induce embarrassment, hold up the line, and make the people in line behind you hate you for being poor.
November 2, 2025 at 2:50 PM
I’ll say something then. SNAP (and WIC) lifted me out of poverty 20-something years ago. We should feed people.
The restrictions f’n suck though. I suspect their primary purpose was to induce embarrassment, hold up the line, and make the people in line behind you hate you for being poor.
The restrictions f’n suck though. I suspect their primary purpose was to induce embarrassment, hold up the line, and make the people in line behind you hate you for being poor.
When the right wing government says it’s left wing to refrain from atrocities, I choose to believe them.
November 1, 2025 at 4:21 PM
When the right wing government says it’s left wing to refrain from atrocities, I choose to believe them.
That also might result in a lot more resignations in the near future when prosecutors are ordered to sign but won’t.
October 29, 2025 at 1:37 AM
That also might result in a lot more resignations in the near future when prosecutors are ordered to sign but won’t.
Right, but the fact that the justices would get to decide *after* a Trump v. Obama election if the winner counts or not is reason enough not to run Obama.
October 27, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Right, but the fact that the justices would get to decide *after* a Trump v. Obama election if the winner counts or not is reason enough not to run Obama.