You're welcome to care about as many things as you desire, at the same time, friend. It's a question of perspective and relative importance. The reply didn't comment about A and B and C, only A - implying A was the most important thing to consider and discuss.
Should your concern lie with individuals transcribing their own conversations, or with mass surveillance and wiretapping actively being executed by a broad range of official and corporate entities without your consent?
Kinetic energy scales with velocity squared (0.5mv^2), so this result makes sense. Brakes dissipate constant energy, but the amount of energy it needs to disapate is going up much faster.
In addition you're attempting to recycle space junk ("bullets") when you're quite literally standing on planet packed to rafters with junk. The energy required to harvest the material in orbit makes it extremely hard to make a case that it is economical.
I'm sorry, "harvest space junk"? How on earth could that possibly be profitable? There is zero mystery why any VC, Midwest or otherwise, would not be interested in that business model.
No, you definitely could not do it 20 years ago with hobbyist grade parts. The software basically did not exist and whatever tech there was was strictly hidden behind government arms control restrictions (ITAR) because of fears that the tech could be used in ballistic missiles.
>> I find it a bit strange that the author leads with the example of wanting to "blind cancel", and then suggests that maturity and communication is the real answer to that scenario.
I don't think that's the _only_ solution the author is suggesting. She also goes on to mention "...self-knowledge: Will you be in the mood next week?". In other words, don't make plans if you're not confident you won't break them. Similar to the idea of "hell yes or no" as a response to social requests. If you don't have a strong sense for stuff you like/don't like doing and how you'll feel about social situations in the future that's going to be tough.
I generally agree with your sentiment but do also think there is value in some degree of flexibility and recognizing some plans have more significance than other.
E.g. if the friend bailed on a coffee break instead of a weeks-in-advance-vacation-plan it would be much less of a big deal (maybe not even worth nuking the friendship over?). Either way, situations like that do call for evaluating how important that person is in your life and (down)ranking them accordingly. Everyone has some fair-weather friends.
Sure, if you're operating under the assumption that a) he understands geo-politics and global defense better than the leadership of his country and b) he has better and more real-time information (than the leadership) about the situation on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan at the time.
If he thought what they were doing over there in 2007 was morally/ethically indefensible and decided to join up anyway then, yes, judge away.
Probably more straightforward to lay the blame squarely where it's due, at those who made the high level decisions to engage in the war in the first place, especially in the context of the outcomes of said war.
First you say it was "used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation"... ie the executive branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes".
I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how the author came to his conclusions (described in parent replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g. whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring conversation.
Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and how it's not great.
Sure if you take the most hardcore literal interpretation. It's just short hand for "the enemies of the state" or "whoever my duly elected leadership consider to be the bad guys". Yes, people still willingly give up their independence for what they consider to be the greater good. Consider the entire united states armes forces and almost all government employees (in particular the folks who work for 3 letter agencies).
It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society. Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.
This article was about the author's reasons for joining the military, not sure why you expect it to also be about the detailed history of a particular unit or the general ethics of being a modern soldier?
I think that's a pretty disengenous take on the author's thought process. If you read the entire article it's clear that he believes in the concept of defending his country and trusting his leaders to correctly decide how that defense is carried out. If that decision is to send him to the middle east then so be it. It very clearly is not about him wanting to "do a bit of invading."
Maybe you think the middle east invasion was the wrong call. Totally fair. But you should blame the correct actor for that call, and it certainly is not the individual soldier.