Where is this? I’m pretty sure I’m overqualified.

How weak is weak? Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. That was as much of a curbstomp as you’ll ever see in military history.

There’s some theories out there about just how vulnerable modern carriers are to modern subs. One thing detractors bring up is a Chinese sub popping up in US Navy maneuvers completely undetected in 2007. However, active sonar methods are usually turned off outside of wartime, so it’s not as simple as that.

One theory is that subs are at an inherent disadvantage in a technological arms race. Let’s say a nation produces a sonar that can pick up any sub currently built. Likely, they’ll be able to fit that sonar onto all their existing ships. Conversely, if you wanted to protect your own subs against that new sonar method, you will likely have to rebuild all your subs. Now, even nuclear subs are cheaper to produce than supercarriers, but this still isn’t a favorable technological position in the long run.

Drones and hypersonic missiles are a bigger threat, IMO. More so drones. Hypersonic missiles have some disadvantages of maneuverability that make them a poor choice for a moving target. Drones are limited in range, though, so the US Navy could just keep the carriers away from shore.

Even in a scenario where the EU massively increases production of tanks and guns and drones, they still have to get those things into the theater of operations. One thing the US military is really, really good at is logistics. The EU up until now has little modern experience at it, because the US did it all for them.

Carriers would provide air superiority to prevent any reinforcements from landing. That’s all. Trump is willing to push a war of attrition on this one, because again, he’s an idiot.

If a nuclear sub did manage to sink a US supercarrier, Trump would likely try to galvanize support in a “Remember the Maine!” fashion. I doubt it would shift actual support much at all. Quite the opposite; without doing the legwork for a paper thin excuse ahead of time and building a media frenzy the way the Bush II admin did, it only highlights how dumb and pointless the whole thing is, and that he’s putting American service members at risk for no gain whatsoever.

Oh, and that nuclear sub would be hunted down and sunk in response. The EU doesn’t have the forces to win a war of attrition.

The only way I see this working out for the EU is if there’s a major purge of the US military beforehand. That would ensure loyalty to Trump, but it would toss competence into a woodchipper. Edit: see the Finish Winter War for how well purges work out. And the Finns technically still lost that one.

The US has more supercarriers than France has nuclear attack submarines. That’s not even counting US “amphibious assault ships”, which would be carriers in anybody else’s navy. It’s pretty unequal.

It’s illegal by international law–UN charter and the ICC both have sections against invading other country’s territory. International law is only as good as anyone is willing to enforce it, which in the case of Iraq, wasn’t very much.

Why would Greenland be different? Iraq was supported by a paper thin excuse of WMDs, and the history of antagonism. The Trump Administration hasn’t done the legwork to even setup a paper thin excuse beyond “they have resources we want”, and there’s no particular history of Greenland invading its own neighbors or even threatening them. In fact, it’s been an important strategic location for the US Navy’s control of the North Atlantic since WWII. Trump hasn’t bothered with even the slightest attempt at this because he’s an idiot.

Does that mean the military will refuse the order? I really have no idea. It’s not something anybody should count on. More likely, you’ll have different units making different decisions. Some outright refusing, others slow walking their orders while appearing to obey, and others eager to do it. However, it’s possible that the military will refuse en masse.

I think the burgeoning protest movements in the US should also be prepared to take direct action against the military. Things like linking hands to block the gates to weapons factories. And to the naysayers of “what are these protests even accomplishing?”, it’s to prepare a mass movement that is capable of doing this sort of thing.

I don’t think there’s a practical ability. The European powers can’t project power outside their boarders without the US helping. Especially with an overseas nation like Greenland.

England and France have a few carriers, but that’s about it. Landing troops would be highly vulnerable to US air superiority. US carriers are larger and more numerous than anything Europe can put up. Based on the local geography, those carriers can stay safe from drone range (a benefit Russia does not have on the Black Sea).

But that also assumes the US military is unified to follow orders into an illegal war, and that may not be the case.

“Improvement” is an open ended term. Would having longer or shorter toes be beneficial? Depends on the evolutionary environment.

ChatGPT does have a feedback loop. Every prompt you give it affects its internal state. That’s why it won’t give you the same response next time you give the same prompt. Will it be better or worse? Depends on what you want.

I’ve played with markov chains. They don’t create serious results, ever. ChatGPT is right just often enough for people to think it’s right all the time.

There’s psychological quizzes that are much shorter than that. There’s a four question quiz that, on the surface, is about parenting. They’re actually about authoritarianism, and the answers are highly correlated with support for Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

They’re popular in Wisconsin and Wisconsin-adjecent states. If I didn’t know the details, I would prefer to go to a local chain over Home Depot or Lowes or whatever, but, yeah.

Nah, just a typo.

If they use original art, no, even if the characters are owned by a company.

It may be trademark infringement, however. Depends on how close you get. See Spirt Halloween costumes for examples.

Menards. They have a history of dumping waste illegally and then daring the DNR to sue them. One example:

https://archive.jsonline.com/business/114143619.html

I’ve heard that phrase a handful of times now and it’s already making my eye twitch. Though I don’t think it’s meant to be complimentary.

He probably paid some fishing tourist shop to get him to just the right place so he could hook it and pull it in. That pic cost him money, and it’s really important to him.

Some time ago, I heard a story of CS and Econ professors having lunch together. The Econ professor was excited that Excel was going to release a version that blew out the 64k row limit. The CS professor nearly choked on his lunch.

Dependence on Excel has definitely caused bad papers to be published in the Econ space, and has had real world consequences. There was a paper years ago that stated that once a country’s debt gets above 120% of GDP, its economy goes into a death spiral. It was passed around as established fact by the sorts of politicians who justify austerity. Problem was, nobody could reproduce the results. Then an Econ undergrad asked the original author for their Excel spreadsheet, and they found a coding error in the formulas. Once corrected, the conclusion disappeared.

The trick is to take the hard drive out of the EVA foam.

Did they ever finish their own bible translation? The one they started because King James was too woke.

Right, I think the two aren’t as different as they appear. You can think of a closure as an object with just one method.

If OO programming is fundamentally about objects sending messages to each other, then there are many ways to approach that. Some of those ways are totally compatible with functional programming.

The legacy of C++ has dominated what OOP is “supposed” to be, but it doesn’t have to work like that.