andymueller.bsky.social
41 posts
38 followers
136 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Errm the NPT and various UNSCRs.
comment in response to
post
Does this hurt the administration somehow? Or does it instead hurt Angelenos? Really need to think through the consequences of your inchoate rebelliousness
comment in response to
post
Adam, I've been a big fan of yours, but we're dealing with a pivotal moment in world politics right now, and I would have hoped you were asking those providing levelheaded analysis instead of sophomoric barbs. Now is the time to do all we can to ensure the guy at the helm doesnt steer twd the rocks
comment in response to
post
It's right there in the army's mission in title 10: Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States, and marching in straight lines for no apparent purpose
comment in response to
post
Triple like
comment in response to
post
Telling what? That they didn't take even more time and energy out of their training schedules to do something that in no way defends the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic?
comment in response to
post
The signal is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't disagree that some will interpret the past few days as weakness. But I have felt more confident in my country this weekend than any since November, and America's enemies would interpret weakness at their own peril
comment in response to
post
It signalled vulnerability only if the onlooker doesn't notice that the protests are a sign that, despite Election 2024, the America of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt is still alive and kicking.
comment in response to
post
It signalled vulnerability only if the onlooker doesn't understand that the feeble display was due to our forces prioritizing worldwide operations and training rather than pomp and circumstance and stupid vanity at home.
comment in response to
post
Shine the light
comment in response to
post
By design, either the President or Congress is supposed to have the sense of decency to remove the offending person from office, however we the people have tacitly accepted an environment in which decency doesn't matter; only whose team you're on
comment in response to
post
Maybe "opposite" is the wrong adjective. Maybe there are simply no words for this stupidity
comment in response to
post
This is the opposite of eugenics, really. I don't think there's been a eugenicist in history that has encouraged his own in-group to embrace dying
comment in response to
post
I'll stand by for your opening argument
comment in response to
post
Thank you! People like you are why this app is so much better.. no slam-dunking on people-- just opening their eyes to the deeper riches of history! Much appreciated
comment in response to
post
That's what I was thinking: an "original"... 85 years later???
comment in response to
post
^Underrated media strategy these days
comment in response to
post
Clarence Thomas-- Marxist ghoul. Sure.
comment in response to
post
A sneak peek of Kennedy Center's 2026 season
comment in response to
post
@nyttypostypos.bsky.social protégé unless he was hiding something
comment in response to
post
While the idea of the article is spot on, using "prebunking" in this way is an etymological atrocity. The term suggests that, rather than dispelling falsehoods, one is racing to create them before another person does. Suggest we explore other words, so truthtellers don't make easy prey of themselves
comment in response to
post
Taxis wouldn't be the market. It's just the sandbox. Trucking is where the money would be made (by corporations, not the Teamsters ofc)
comment in response to
post
Least popular among...whom, Mr Secretary?
comment in response to
post
@hcrichardson.bsky.social have you started writing "How Russia Won the Cold War?"
comment in response to
post
The only correct way of wording this memo is by saying that cadets are free to associate as they wish, but cannot do so during duty hours, in their official capacities.
comment in response to
post
Apparently the USMA JAG is a wet noodle.
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure coequal is even the right term. Congress was originally designed to be the primus inter pares if not the outright most consequential of the three
comment in response to
post
Come 2026, we will each need to assess, as certain government outputs plummet, whether the gains elsewhere and presumably the reduction in inputs result in a net gain under our own personal laws of "government efficiency."
comment in response to
post
One can only surmise what the favored priorities will be. It's already clear what is not the priority-- for example, foreign aid and the mutual goodwill that presumably comes with it.
comment in response to
post
While ideally these terms would be defined now, at the outset of this wide-reaching effort, allowing Americans to guide its progress, it may be that we'll have to divine them ourselves, as we look back at what has been slashed and burned.
comment in response to
post
But returning to "Government Efficiency," it will be impossible for the American public to ascertain the success of the DOGE unless the terms are defined.
comment in response to
post
Someone might desire only one output from their government-- for example. A crime rate at zero, or a maximal GDP. But that strains the imagination. Generally we expect more than a few outcomes from our government.
comment in response to
post
Sure it can, but not in most circumstances. The purpose of government is purely a value judgement. I pay my taxes, and I expect a certain set of services in return. Someone a few States away, or even my neighbor, may expect a different set of services.
comment in response to
post
For a gas turbine, this is relatively simple-- how much electrical power do I generate per unit of fuel? Generally speaking there's only one output to measure. But can the purpose of government be distilled down into one parameter?
comment in response to
post
I think we can agree which input goes in the denominator- dollars. But with Musk's technical background, I'd love for him to define which outputs of the US govt he's measuring to determine "efficiency."
comment in response to
post
Appreciate the tone of the piece-- observing but not judging. I will take that next step: I wonder how long into the term we will realize we're not in the 19th century.
comment in response to
post
It depends what you're trying to do with it. If you're using it to watch Real Housewives, it uses more resources than the avg chip.
If you're doing complex calculations like the one mentioned, which would have taken 1 septillion yrs on a normal chip, the quantum chip of course saves energy.
comment in response to
post
If you're like me and 90% of your Twitter followers are fake accounts, then you're already at a comparable level of living, breathing followers on Bsky