Correct- I get super annoyed because I’m not tipping a Starbucks barista for pouring me a drip coffee but I have to pick “no tip” while her eyes are boring into my skull and ofc she’ll know instantly that I didn’t tip. This has caused me to rarely go to Starbucks anymore.

We’re about to start the process of designing and building a house, and I want allllll the unsolicited advice. What are your “absolutely do this” and “whatever you do, DON’T do this” recommendations? Example: “Don’t put a sink in the kitchen island!”

has anyone every proposed just straight up banning those tiny bottles of booze? seems like they're entirely consumed by dangerous alcoholics and people in cars

I was thirty-something years old when Iranian students dragged me into a room and told me I wasn't going anywhere. Four hundred and forty-four days later, I walked out. I've spent the decades since trying to make sense of what happened — and what keeps happening — between our two countries. So don't talk to me about Iran like it's an abstraction. I lived inside that confrontation. I felt it. Which is why I'm not ready to write off this ceasefire, even though everything about it is maddening. Negotiations in Pakistan may produce nothing. The talks could collapse before they get started. I've seen American diplomacy with Iran fail more times than I can count, and usually for the same reasons — too much pride, too little patience, and Israel holding a match in the corner of the room. But here's what I know in my bones: another war won't break Iran. We just tried. It didn't work. Iran doesn't break — it absorbs, it adapts, and it waits. I watched that stubbornness up close for 444 days. What bothers me most isn't that Iran is winning this moment — it's that we handed it to them. Tehran's framework is running these negotiations. Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz. Still collecting tolls. Trump looked at their proposal and called it workable. I never thought I'd see the day, but here we are. Iran wants everything on the table — sanctions, enrichment rights, American troops out, and a deal that covers what's happening in Lebanon and Gaza too. That's a lot to swallow. And Israel, which wasn't invited to this conversation, is already making clear it has no intention of being constrained by it. That's the part that worries me the most. Because if Israel keeps bombing and Washington can't or won't stop it, none of this holds. And yet — and I say this as someone who has every reason to distrust Tehran — I don't think we go back to all-out war. Not because anyone has suddenly gotten wise, but because the math doesn't work. A second round ends the same way. Iran still controls the Strait. The global economy still flinches when Tehran flexes. What we're heading toward isn't peace. It's something smaller and more precarious — two countries silently agreeing not to destroy each other today, with no paperwork and no guarantees. I know what it's like to survive on something that fragile. For 444 days, that's all I had.

GOP is kidding itself if it thinks oil won't hit $250/bbl once T mines the Strait of Hormuz. Or that he won't if Putin says to. x.com/w7voa/status/829044165…

A truck carrying antiprotons will drive across Europe. A team at CERN just transported antimatter across the laboratory's campus in a truck. Literally. 92 antiprotons packed into a portable trap weighing one tonne. As everyone knows, antimatter annihilates on contact with ordinary matter - which is basically everything. The final destination is Germany: Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf. An extraordinary delivery in the history of road transport. home.cern/news/press-release…

U.S. and Israeli officials increasingly view securing the Strait of Hormuz as the most realistic endgame of the conflict, shifting away from earlier ambitions like regime change and fully stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which they now consider unlikely to succeed. Source: WaPo

Retired Army JAG here. And former infantry soldier & officer. And current law professor. And YOU are full of shit. No quarter ORDERS do violate #LOAC. Giving that order is a war crime even if it's not carried out. But that is NOT an order @SecWar @PeteHegseth gave. And that is why you are full of shit. See, I've also trained hundreds of soldiers on LOAC in the applied context. Thousands, actually. And I've advised commanders & decision makers on LOAC in combat, in Afghanistan as Chief of International & Operational Law for CJTF-101/RC-E (OEF XIV). That's why I know the difference between what SECWAR said in a press briefing yesterday & a war crime. Apparently you don't - so I'll do you a favor & spell it out for you step by step, in simple language that you'll hopefully understand. Let's start off with what Hegseth ACTUALLY said: "It's a mess for them. Who's in charge? Iran may not even know. With every passing hour, we know and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate; they're confused and we know it. Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies." (war.gov/News/Transcripts/Tra…) Alright, if we consider this "no quarter" observation in context, we see Hegseth's intent is to convey that @DeptofWar is going to exert max pressure on our adversary. We know their military capabilities "are crumbling" & we're not going to back off. Keep pushing, keep advancing. "No quarter. No mercy." See, content & intent are important. This is how we differentiate political rhetoric from war crime. Reality from...bullshit. If we go all the way back to Hague, II (1899) & Hague, IV (1907), the Regulations annexed to both Conventions make it forbidden, "To declare that no quarter will be given" (pic 1, from Hague, IV). Seems legit, right? Isn't that what SECWAR just "declared"? Well, if LOAC development stopped at 1907, maybe you could make that argument. But, it didn't. In negotiations for later treaties, delegates decided to be more clear about what exactly that prohibition should entail. So, next we'll consider 2 later treaties 🇺🇸 hasn't ratified but we were deeply involved in shaping - Additional Protocol I (1977) to 1949 Geneva Conventions & Rome Statute @IntlCrimCourt (1998). As we'll see below, these sources confirm Hegseth's political rhetoric is NOT a LOAC violation or war crime...and US DoW doctrine is consistent with relevant text of these treaties. Let's start with AP I. As we see from art. 40, this treaty clarifies (7 decades after Hague IV), "It is prohibited to ORDER that there shall be no survivors, to THREATEN an adversary therewith or to CONDUCT hostilities on this basis" (pic 2). So, 3 specific verbs to highlight 1 condition. No ordering, threatening, or conducting (verbs) armed hostilities under condition(s) of NO SURVIVORS. Now, reach all the way back in your memory - like 2 minutes ago - when you read actual text of Hegseth's remarks. Do you genuinely believe SECWAR just ordered or threatened there will be no survivors, even if an enemy IRGC member tries to surrender - or that we are now as a result conducting hostilities on that basis? Be honest. Of course not. And no one in the military is going to hear/read his remarks and think, "SECWAR just ordered me to take no prisoners." Seriously. Moving on from AP I, art. 8(2)(b)(xii) of Rome Statute essentially copies text of Hague IV, art. 23(d) to make "declaring no quarter will be given" a war crime (not pictured). BUT the elements of crimes follows AP I (pic 3), as does DoD Law of War Manual (pic 4). Yes, actual no quarter ORDERS do violate LOAC. Just the order alone is a war crime. But max pressure political rhetoric is not the same as an ORDER "that there shall be no survivors." Which means Sec Hegseth's comments are neither LOAC violation nor war crime. Which also means Rep Vindman is full of 💩.

Hegseth: “The only thing prohibiting transit in [Hormuz] right now is Iran shooting at shipping.” “It is open for transit should Iran not do that”