>> In geopolitics, an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants, usually in large numbers, to forcefully enter the territory of another polity,[1] with either side possibly being supported by one or more allies. While strategic goals for an invasion can be numerous and complex in nature, the foremost tactical objective normally involves militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory. Today, if a polity conducts an invasion without having been attacked by their opponent beforehand, it is widely considered to constitute an international crime and condemned as an act of aggression.
That definition includes what happened here. Drop all the optional conditions (“usually large numbers”, “possibly being supported”) and the core statement becomes:
“an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants to forcefully enter the territory of another polity”
Can you at least appreciate the irony of someone using their own definition that disagrees with yours, you arguing against their using their own definition, and then there being another widely-cited definition that disagrees with your own, which you also argue against?
I’m not arguing against the Wikipedia definition because it does not disagree with mine. It says “usually in large numbers”, aka not necessarily large numbers. It says goals are complex but “normally involves militarily occupying”, aka not necessarily occupying.
Well, absent further interventions - possibly even a real invasion! - there is no reason for the current regime in Venezuela to change its policy very much (aside from beefing up its air defense maybe)
They've already been threatened to play ball: "While it is conceivable that Rodríguez has agreed to co-operate with the Trump administration to save her own skin – Trump said the US was prepared carry out a second wave of strikes if necessary – she will not be seen as someone willing to implement change."
Intent is 90% of the law. We still call someone a murderer even if their attempt failed. And today there were action behind the words. I don't see any reason to argue this is anything but an invasion.
I would not agree. Intelligence operatives are often in place for long durations in hostile sovereign territory, and some were likely used in this event. Their presence is not an invasion.
Air operations also are not seen as invasions, and the recent stealth strikes by the U.S. in Iran are not seen this way.
It appears to me that armed troops in place that are taking and holding territory for a prolonged duration are the definition.
The dictionary definition below is "the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."
We have the president of the United States, who ordered the assault, saying openly that “we are going to run the country” and you ask what the object of conquest was?
This is just making stuff up. None of the definitions offered up here posit this requirement aside from the one apparently in your head.
The United States sent ground troops into another country to depose its leader and install a government that will bend to United States demands. The president of the United States and his advisors have openly stated that this was done to take over the other country and extract money. This is an invasion by any reasonable definition, including the ones that have been shared here.
> Edit: if the Maduro kidnapping is an invasion, then it follows that the Eichmann kidnapping was likewise.
Was Eichmann the leader of Argentina? Did this action effect a systemic change in the government of Argentina or give Israel power or access to Argentinian resources?
Let's pretend that the International Criminal Court were to apprehend Donald Trump and take him to the Hague for trial today over this event.
His claims to control the country and its resources would be inadmissible as charges, because they have not happened. They would be admissible to establish intent, but that would lead to lesser charges.
While I realize that the lower limit of a legal definition of the events of the last twenty-four hours is in the thoughts of very few, no overt actions of force have been taken as yet to obtain those goals.
That lower limit is extra-judicial kidnapping.
Edit: if someone involved in an assault says the words "I want to kill you," then that can establish intent and trigger, among other things, a restraining order, or perhaps elevate the charge to aggravated assault.
The words themselves cannot be used to prosecute for murder.
In the same way, there are many ways that nations inflict violence upon one another, and I think "invasion" is premature, but certainly possible.
However, none but Maduro and his wife were taken, so perhaps the force of arms will be judged sufficient.
> His claims to control the country and its resources would be inadmissible as charges, because they have not happened.
I fail to see the relevance of this tangent. You haven’t even specified what the hypothetical inadmissible charges would be.
It seems like you are trying to say that an unsuccessful invasion should not count as an invasion, which is absurd. If Canada sent 100k troops to DC to take over America but they were all promptly killed, would that not count as an invasion?
Axios has a new article with information that is germane.
'...no U.S. troops would be on the ground "if the vice president does what we want..."'
'[Rodriguez] also left the door open to a dialogue with the Trump administration, calling for "respectful relations," according to the Associated Press.'
You're pointing to an article with the US threatening to do it again, and you're still trying to argue this isn't an invasion?
The semantics are cute for technical documents. But please get some perspective. Buildings and destroyed and innocent lives lost. I don't care what you call it, it's bad.
My understanding (for which I can't give you a citation) is that a tiny fraction of Google visitors are randomly chosen to try to reach IPv6 servers and measure what happens.
Because of Happy Eyeballs if you measure whether your users did use IPv6 you don't find out whether they could have done so, and so your results will be thrown off by happenstance.
APNIC's stats check for that. For the US, it makes the difference between 58.74% capable and 57.85% preferring, so it doesn't produce a huge discrepancy.
I believe your understanding here is incorrect. It doesn’t make sense that Google would claim to measure usage while actually measuring access. I can’t find anything that supports your assertion.
> those bloated packets are death for many modern applications like VoIP.
Huh? The packet sizes aren’t that much different and VOIP is hardly a taxing application at this point anyway. VOIP needs barely over dial-up level bandwidth.
It's not the bandwidth it's the latency. Because of the latency you need to pack a small amount of data in VoIP packets so the extra header size of IPv6 stings more than it would for ordinary http traffic
Because all that usage is in one market space, mobile device only. Take mobile devices out of the picture and that graph would be through the floor.
Mobile and Telco ISPs are the only ones not issueing IPv4 addresses to their clients and this will never change.
Saying NAT 'Won Out' may have been a bit of a flippant overreacting statement which I apologise for, but IPv6 will never replace IPv4 outside of the mobile space and that was my core point I was (poorly) trying to make.
> traffic level stayed close to 50% during the IPv6 only period.
> Nobody complained: those who did not have working IPv6 probably blamed it on cloudflare.
You described a situation where the outage resulted in 50% of your customers were unable to reach you and you were unable to do anything about it. I don’t think this story is a win for IPv6, regardless of whether your customers blame CloudFlare or not.
Would hand been 100% if his site supported ipv4 natively instead of relying on CloudFlare to do the translation.
The story here is not “ipv6 made my site resilient to CloudFlare outage”. It’s “50% of my customers can’t reach my site even when I turn off CloudFlare”.
I have fiber to my house and no native IPv6 support. I did some research and it seems there is a way to enable IPv6, but it’s janky and just tunnels over IPv4 so what’s the point?
I would love for IPv6 to actually take off but somehow it feels like we are still a decade away from ubiquitous adoption.
I have Verizon Fios and after they upgraded my network speed from 1G to 2.5G and ONT to some "next gen" one I lost IPv6 support because supposedly this newer ONT does not support it, lol. Verizon is going backwards.
Are you quoting straight out of a CCP propaganda book?
America supposedly has no resources so we are exploiting other countries. Someone says China has no resources and suddenly the only resource that matters is the spirit of the Chinese people. Give me a break.
> I was making the point that the cave painters believed everything including rocks and trees were deeply invested with spiritual power, and they didn't draw a cave painting without investing it with spiritual ideas.
Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.
> when they went hunting for one a part of the goal would be cut out its heart and eat it raw because of the power contained within
Do you have a pointer to the cave paintings that show hunting animals at certain times in the lunar cycles and eating their hearts raw to harvest this power? Because this sounds made up.
>Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.
you need to study a bit more history, psychology, anthropology, etc., you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today and what today's hunter gatherers believe. the evidence is on my side. If you have counter evidence, offer it.
>Also this says nothing about art.
I said something about art, whereas till I said it, art was void in the conversation which I think is a glaring mistake which is why I said it. If you have something to say about art, say it, otherwise you don't have a dog in this fight.
> you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today
People don’t believe this today. What are you talking about? Do you think most people today are hunting animals to eat their raw hearts to gain their power at certain times of the month?
> If you have counter evidence, offer it.
I’m not the one claiming deep insight into the beliefs of prehistoric peoples. Burden of proof is on you.
> I said something about art
You really didn’t. You said nothing meaningful about art except to substitute it for the word picture. And then the rest of your replies have also had nothing to do with art.
This page wasn’t a regurgitation of facts. It was filled with custom interactive applets that let you explore the effects of physical changes. The core value proposition here is not the facts but the ability to explore and intuit the physics.
I do understand the contention is that an LLM would be less thoughtful in editorializing which bits to make interactive, reasoning about the progression in understanding and delight by the user.
I'm not so sure it's that far out of reach, though. From what I've seen the reasoning models do, they're not too far away from being able to run a strategy of figuring out interesting increments of a problem, parameterizing them, making an interactive scene for those parameters, ... it feels within reach.
I said nothing about LLMs. I said this page was not simply regurgitation of facts.
I personally doubt LLMs are close to producing anything like this, but that wasn’t the point. You indicated that this should be easy for an LLM because it’s just a fact dump. Regardless of whether some future LLM can generate something like this, it’s much more complicated and interesting than a simple fact dump.
When one nation’s military illegally enters another nation’s sovereign territory to carry out military actions, that’s usually called an invasion.
reply