Kevin

@CochraneChris @DanDePetris Incoherent retard babble from a trumpanzee as expected. I said Trump went back and forth on what tariffs he was going to impose on Canada/Mexico and settled on only tariffing non compliant goods, but I understand you’re a subhuman animal who lacks basic reading comprehension

They never violated USMA which is why carney had to say we won’t violate like the United States hasn’t. The fact you call it cusma but putting the c in the front but leaving the Canada a at the end is the dumbest shit on earth that you Canadians do. All the documents say USMCA. Mexico calls it USMCA. And Canadians call it cusma because of their little kid feelings. So yeah. You are a cuck from Canada and everyone knows know from your tell. By the way Mexico tariffed China at 50% at the same time you were there at the USA direction. So no mexico is not moving away from anything. They are growing closer while you try to get free video games you poor

As far as I can tell from the various public reports circulating today, Trump’s demands in any negotiations with Iran—no Iranian enrichment; cuts in Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal; Iran ending support to proxies; Iran’s main nuclear facilities eliminated—are essentially the same now as they were back in January. Now we can add one more to the list: free and unfettered traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which ironically we already had before Trump decided to go to war. Trump seems to think the 3+ weeks of war have softened Iran to the point where, out of desperation, it will now at least grant concessions it previously rejected. If that’s the calculation, it’s a bad one. First, while Iran has taken a beating militarily, it’s arguably in a stronger position now than it was before the war. Why? Because the war has shown Iran it can control the busiest choke-point in the Middle East whenever it wants (the numbers don’t lie). Effectively controlling the Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s biggest card, and they’re going to keep playing it until one of two things happens: (1) Trump finds a way to control it militarily or (2) Trump strikes an end-of-war settlement that takes at least some of Tehran’s own demands into account. Second, Iran’s leadership has gotten more rigid since the war started. Trump celebrates the killing of senior Iranian officials as big accomplishments, but those tactical successes have come with strategic costs, like elevating more hardline figures in the Iranian hierarchy and basically helping the IRGC consolidate its own power over the political system. Even if Araghchi wanted to make concessions, I’m not sure he would be able to. Finally, any diplomacy, regardless of the asks, will be more difficult now. Iran doesn’t trust Trump, Witkoff or Kushner. The Iranians will constantly be asking themselves whether Trump’s diplomacy is real or whether it’s just a ploy to buy time for an escalation of the war. And why wouldn’t they, given the track record of these talks to date? Getting to negotiations is the easy part.

@jibtie @DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm It is more epidemiology, that’s where Avi is getting the models to test relative risk. And I understand that is his claim, I just don’t take it seriously since he’s a crank from outside the field that isn’t punishing his work.

@Spooper19 @DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm Relative risk isn’t any more “epidemiology” than civilian casualty ratios is. Also the claim isn’t just that it’s “better”. It’s that relative risk tracks more with adherence to the principle of distinction the civilian casualty ratios does.

Very few people who agree with both of these correct claims: A) The settler movement in the West Bank are modern-day fascists, and the Netanyahu government's implicit endorsement of the recent rein of terror there against Palestinians is not only morally repugnant but potentially catastrophic for the future of Israel and the region. B) The IDF did not systematically target civilians in the Gaza Strip and I still have no idea why that became consensus when it's pretty obvious to me that, even if the IDF were simply *indifferent* to civilian loss of life, they would have easily killed orders of magnitude more people than they actually did kill, and in a much shorter time frame. And it would not even really be that unusual for urban combat.

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm this is why pro Israel advocates who try and push the tired and obviously incorrect talking point have to cast doubt on them happening at all, which is where I expect to see you in a few months

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm necessary*

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm @AviBittMD I already answered the question, he’s a hack.

@Spooper19 @ModernHerm Good question. @AviBittMD why haven’t you published this study yet. I know you said that you intended to do so. Would definitely be helpful if you can.

@CochraneChris @DanDePetris SCOTUS struck them down but Trump went back and forth on the Canada and Mexico ones like 5 different times before he settled on only tariffing non-CUSMA compliant tariffs. So yeah, TACO

@Spooper19 @DanDePetris Your right. Taco. Trump always conquers opponents. Just like the tarrifs that all still exist that Kevin thinks do not I guess?

@Draiden4Peace @DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm the best data on gaza shows at least 100k violent deaths, Avi’s model was always dumb and not something he took seriously enough to get published but using it now is even dumber

@DerekPederson3 @Spooper19 @ModernHerm That dataset is assuming 25k militants with no evidence and is missing over a year of deaths.

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm Avi’s dataset is the ONLY dataset on it and there’s no reason to believe the model he’s using is appropriate for modelling wartime deaths. it’s also extremely out of date.

@Spooper19 @ModernHerm I like Avi's dataset on this: x.com/AviBittMD/stat…

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm Avi is a hack and his dataset is stupid. If he’s so confident that using epidemiology is better than comparing civilian casualty ratios to other examples of modern urban warfare he should publish this revolutionary approach in a journal

@Spooper19 @ModernHerm No, it is falsifiable. If you calculate the *relative risk* of militants vs. civilians dying in a battle Gaza is less indiscriminate than most battles have been.

@CochraneChris @DanDePetris the US will not do that. Trump will TACO again and he has no escalation dominance. Still waiting on the power plant strike

Alright again. They don't control the strait more than anyone saying we will randomly attack any ship we don't want going through controls anything that's piracy. Not control. Uae could do it to Iran. Saudis could do it to Iran. Qatar could do it to iran and the USA and Israel can do it to Iran. Saying we blow up your commerical ship of listen to us is not command of anything. The USA will blow up all of their oil fields instantly if this doesn't work. That's why they get one more chance at the table. One country can actually do a real blockaid and it isn't Iran. They are 100% weaker who just got every diplomat in the region expelled. They are backing down and YOU HATE IT

@GolerGkA @TNG512 @DerekPederson3 retard

@TNG512 @DerekPederson3 Of course it’s very unusual. It’s far too low compared to what urban combat usually looks like

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm unfortunately for your lame attempt at atrocity denial, there are several parts of the IDF’s conduct which are not able to be explained way except as policy to target civilians such as the routine killings at aid sites. these are unable to be explained away

@DerekPederson3 @ModernHerm this argument is unfalsifiable. you say that because an arbitrary amount of people didn’t die it’s not consistent with targeting civilians and when it’s pointed out that it is when compared to other wars you say Gaza is simply beyond comparison and world historically unique

@playstationyesr @PlayerEssence they didn’t say they were cutting production. sales in the US were slightly weaker but sales in Asia are stronger than expected.

@PlayerEssence Sales are slowing why is it that Nintendo themselves say something and you clowns say its not true. How tf does that work. Xbots said the same shit and look how that turned out.

Mat Piscatella from Circana seems to dismiss the Bloomberg Switch 2 article on the production cut and weak US sales. Switch 2 is selling faster than every other system ever compared by at least 29% and as big as 302% in the US. Only the GBA did better in the first 9 months.

@LyleHender56329 @phl43 fitting that someone lik you outsourced their thinking to an LLM

@Spooper19 @phl43 Go ask an LLM if the US is more sensitive to oil prices or bond rates. You should try looking and thinking beyond headlines.

This is why it's not going to end now.

@LyleHender56329 @phl43 lol high oil prices are a positive for the oil industry in the US. They aren’t a positive for the 350 million people who have to pay them and will vote in the midterms. are you dumb? also it does not follow that they have no military from that at all

@Spooper19 @phl43 High oil prices are a positive for the US and the Russia sanctions relief is part of a larger normalization of Russian relations that you can expect to see more of. Iran has no significant defense against the US and Israel dominating their skies. Ergo, they have no military.