> Don't you need an AUMF for this, at least in theory?
That depends on which theory, and whose narrative of the facts relevant to the theory you accept.
For theories, there are three important ones to consider:
(1) The War Powers Act is Constitutional and its terms govern Presidential use of force without a separate Congressional authorization,
(2) The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional limit on the President's inherent authority and the President's powers to prosecute war abroad, without a Congressional declaration, are broader than the War Powers Act would suggest, and
(3) The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional delegation of reserved Congressional powers to the Executive, and has no effect, leaving the President's powers to prosecute war abroad without a Congressional authorization narrower than the War Powers Act would suggest.
As to relevant factual narratives, there are at least two salient alternatives:
(1) The Government of Venezuela, through the vehicle of the Tren de Agua gang which, in fact, is an instrumentality of the state, has conducted and is conducting, since sometime before March 14, 2025, an invasion of the United States as described in President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and therefore the US is, and has been for some time, engaged in a defensive war against that attack by Venezuela,
(2) The invasion described in #1 is a fantasy, has not occurred, and the US is not engaged in a defensive war against a Venezuelan invasion.
> Which of the tech titans are funny? In public, they tend to speak in one of two registers. The first is the blandly corporate tone we’ve come to expect when we see them dragged before Congressional hearings or fireside chats. The second leans philosophical, as they compose their features into the sort of reverie appropriate for issuing apocalyptic prophecies on AI.
This is just not accurate though? For example, this post from a tech titan might not necessarily be that funny but it's neither blandly corporate nor philosophical: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2006548935372902751
1. Elon is not funny. He’s deeply unfunny.
2. “Tend to” is the key bit you’re missing. It “tends to” be true that titans speak in those registers, even if it is true that Elon, a titan, a does not.
Comparing the two, Europe is in a pretty good place right now thanks to its regulations. I'm glad it isn't as "far" and there are still some vestiges of treating people as humans.
Meanwhile thousands of Americans don't have access to lead free running water, your public transportation system is about as good as ours from 150 years ago, parents have to be back in the office instantly after having a baby, if you don't have insurance a cancer will bankrupt you, your average lifespan is going down, &c.
Keep your llms and iphones, we're more than fine on our side lmao
* Our satellites are giving us by far the best understanding of our universe, capturing one third of the visible sky in incredible detail - just check out this mission update video if you want your mind blown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXCBFlIpvfQ
* Not only that, the Copernicus mission is the world's leading source for open data geoobservation: https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/
* We've given the world mRNA vaccines to solve the Covid crisis and GLP-1 antagonists to solve the obesity crisis.
* CERN and is figuring out questions about the fundamental nature of the universe, with the LHC being by far the largest particle accelerator in the world, an engineering precision feat that couldn't have been accomplished anywhere else.
Innovation isn't just about the latest tech fad. It's about fundamental research on how our universe works. Everyone else is downstream of us.
He's not wrong though. A Europe that has to be responsible for its own defense either has to substantially reform its economy and society, or rely on France with its ASMPA doing the geopolitical equivalent of a drunk guy waving a knife around saying "stay away!".
He's not right either because he makes large vague claims. If we want to discuss it on clear subjects.
The "free" Europe has, and always will, thank the US for their help during WW2.
The US didn't protect us until now, because there was nothing they had to protect us from. US pulled it's allied NATO members into war in Iraq, if we're tallying things up.
With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, both the EU and the US came to aid because a sovereign, close to EU, nation is invaded. No one was forced to do so. It's a matter of adhering to principles, that in theory are, shared by the "western" countries.
Realistically the US would have to jump to our aid if Russia's attempts outreach their Ukraine war. But that is because that's part of the deal we all made when becoming members of NATO.
And in terms of "subsidizing". That's the most outlandish claim, the US military industrial complex is so large for a reason. It's due to benefitting directly from the international government contracts, the technology it's building and selling (let's leave aside the shady and corrupt aspects of it for this topic)
The small amount of investment spent on military by European NATO members is a fair claim, but let's not kid ourselves, the grander scope of such spending will, and is going, towards US military tech. In a sense having higher spending is all about pushing more money to the US.
And if the US doesn't jump to your aid? If in 2028 Trump goes "you guys had six years to prepare and pissed it away, why should we bail you out?" what can Europe do? They could certainly try putting together a multinational European army and taking it into combat but I doubt there is much political will for that in France or Britain, who crucially possess a lot of the air and seapower.
Even without NATO, the EU countries already have a defensive pact.
Which as a sidenote is why the dismantlement of EU looks like appealing proposition to both Russia, and the US (for different reasons).
The US would make such a war easier, and fewer lives would be lost, given it's tech, and intelligence network. With or without the US, Russia would lose such a war.
Only way nukes play into it is if a shithead like Putin says "fuck it", seals himself in the bunker and hits the nukes. But then we are all cooked, whichever country does that, since mutual assured destruction comes into play.
In terms of political and societal effects, really interesting question worth pondering about. How would the other NATO member countries retaliate if the US wouldn't join in defense. That would be a big betrayal, so I hope that at the very least all US assets are seized, and US companies nationalized across the EU.
That is X propaganda. The U.S. actively prohibits additional EU states getting nuclear weapons and does not really want a super strong EU. The U.S. profits from the military strength and "protection" with an overvalued dollar and people irrationally buying U.S. bonds.
The EU spends at least three times as much on defense as Russia. But hey, perhaps it should spend EUR 1 trillion and get active in the Middle East again, after the U.S. has kicked it out in the Suez crisis.
Doesn't matter. Rich enough to afford most products, as pretty much the only market other than the US. And more people. Biggest addressable market for most things.
And yet Apple, Microsoft and Netflix make significantly more revenue from the US than the EU. It's almost as if the EU is not actually a bigger market.
Why are OEMs like Samsung just letting this happen? A lot of power users who buy flagships will leave for iPhones if Android ceases to be an open platform. (This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.)
> This segment is what is preventing the “green bubbles = poor” narrative from taking over.
In the US maybe. In Europe, not so much. With Apple having a market share of "only" about one third and WhatsApp being the de facto default messaging app, this discussion never happened here.
Therefore your argument doesn't apply to Europe at all. Android is more than the "hacky" part. Albeit I'd really love to keep that.
There are countries like China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela where installing an APK is the primary or only way to get most software, including essential bank and government apps.
Outside of the Western market, installing Android apps not from Google Play is a completely normal and regular thing. In countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines (which represent a massive portion of global Android users) it is a standard part of using a phone.
It's not like they didn't try, but Google illegally smashed them.
> Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android)
>
> The General Court largely confirms the Commission's decision that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators in order to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine
I don't think this can scale to really large models (300B+ params), especially once you add a little bit of RL for "common sense"/adversarial scenarios.
