> I assume such situations occur often in Sweden where it's really awkward if you want to hang out with a crowd from lower social class because they know your earnings.

You don't have to be in Sweden to have a pretty good idea within a few minutes of talking to someone, of what the ballpark for their earnings is.

Your social class is written all over your face, your clothes, your manners, your manner of speaking, the company you keep, the hobbies you have, where and how you spend your time...

I am technically in the upper class based on income and place of residence. I drive an 11 year old vehicle, wear inexpensive clothes (often plain tees), eat out infrequently, etc. I unintentionally spend more in areas that tend not to be obvious to non-friends. I'd be upset if people could easily lookup my income.

> Your social class is written all over your face, your clothes, your manners, your manner of speaking, the company you keep, the hobbies you have, where and how you spend your time...

This is not true for lots of software developers who grew up poor but got rich. I wear shitty clothes, live in the ghetto, my hobbies are video games, cycling, and porn, and when speaking I code-switch easily. If anything, it's the other way around - when I'm around city folks with their mannerisms and discussions about veganism I clearly see I don't fit and I come across as a neanderthal despite my income being around top 10%.

> People who don't want to work harder complain that other people make more money because they either don't understand or are in denial about the amount of work the people they envy put in.

I assure you, I have never in my life worked 20 times harder than someone making minimum wage.

Given the events of the past month...

Are we at a point where we can conclusively say that the United States is a country that wants to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth?

Bombing them into the stone age where they belong, complete destruction of them, no quarter, decapitation strikes, bridge day, etc?

> Was there ever a plan or even a goal?

There was. Decapitation strike -> ??? -> Regime change.

Anyone who said this plan was stupid was fired.

The regime's war on DEI is more a war against Dissent, Ethics, and Intelligence.

China doesn't think in that way. It doesn't make permanent alliances. It is always open to reach limited, scoped deals in fields where it benefits them.

Yeah that sounds like a pretty good deal. Drop the bankrupt Russians and do a deal with us Europeans, a much richer market, to brace against US economic warfare.

I suspect that China might be Russia's Ukraine offramp. If Russia decides to pull out, China can come in and work as a negotiator and win brownie points with the EU. I could see them being able to continue working with both Russia and the EU in that future.

> the profits largely benefited the education system.

The profits didn't benefit shit. Yes, the money went into education, and that same education system saw commensurate cuts from regular tax revenue.

What it did is shift the state's tax burden towards people who play the lottery... While permanently entrenching the lottery (How can we ban it! It would gut our education budget!).

I agree with your point, its something i kinda didn't really consider how its perversely intertwining itself with the education budget and making itself effectively immune. I still think its a solid demonstration that comparable sports betting legislation surely lacked any sort of compromise at all, as it was all pushed through so aggressively fast.

Russia's pretty busy with its own war.

But probably itching to do to the US what the US did to them in Ukraine.

(And doing so is likely to reduce US aid to Ukraine, as a bonus to them. Ukraine's certainly not likely to get Tomahawks and Patriots right now.)

What US aid? Trump's been stonewalling it for them just fine.

I said "did to", not "is currently doing to".

And what better way to support that by making some money selling weapons, especially if it gives you a chance to expand your manufacturing base due to increased demand?

The obvious solution is to include women in draft rolls.

> If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.

Why do you assume the split should be fair? The rural areas can be one state, each city can be a separate one.

That would fly, right?

We gotta imagine a few steps further in time and toss in some game-theory.

Imagine a big swing-state split between Yellow and Purple parties. It's legislature is controlled by Yellow, and they pull a sneaky: They partition into 10x Small Yellow states (5% pop each) and one Big Purple state (50% pop) Let's also assume the whole effort somehow evaded requirements in the state's constitution, referendums, etc.

At first glance, you might think Yellow has "won" by adding more/safer seats on the federal level, right?

Except now the folks in Big Purple are kinda pissed, and they control themselves now. They could choose to split again, leaving things as 10x Small Yellow and 10x Small Blue. That puts the partisan balance is back at square one, except for a shit-ton of disruption and pain and a bunch of Yellow politicians are out of a job. So did they really win? Knowing the likely outcome, would they have tried anyway?

In short, it's very different from district gerrymandering. For starters, every division becomes independent, and it won't even happen if residents are asking tough questions like "Then how do I get my water from the river!?" It'll be a very slow and very deliberate process stretched across multiple election cycles.

How exactly is anyone supposed to comply with this, given that neither the FAA nor ICE are telling anyone where ICE vehicles and operations are.

(The answer is obvious - it's impossible to comply with it.)

This is not a rule designed to ensure compliance. It’s designed to punish anyone they choose.

Make no mistake, getting targeted by this will be severely punishing, even if the courts ultimately throw it out.