Ssnake

If you ignore everything that can and will be done in drone defense, sure, the drones are giving leverage. Nobody here argues that drones are a useless fad that will go away. But you can't be taken seriously if you ignore that drone defenses already exist, that more are being developed and procured, and that in the end there will be a new equilibrium where drones will still offer unique advantages in certain situations. But they are no panacea. Likewise, the spectrum of conditions under which MBTs can operate successfully has shrunk, but not to the point where they become redundant. It may appear so at this moment as the new equilibrium has not yet been reached, but that's about the same folly as "experts" claiming in the 1950s that missiles would make guns obsolete, or in the 1970s that missiles would make tanks obsolete. Missiles carved out an important niche, and tanks had to become more careful, but a new balance appeared where the strong, and weak points of missiles were better recognized. The same will happen with drones.

The Euro was created in a response to a careless quip of a Nixon Secretary of Treasure, that "the US Dollar was America's currency, and Europe's problem". Europe may not always be fast to respond, but it does, and countries and institutions have memories exceeding 10 US presidential election cycles. This won't be forgotten in a very long time, especially since Trump demonstrated that pretty much any US president in the future can do similar stuff and there aren't strong institutional checks and balances to hold him back. The fallout from these erratic policies will not be very visible, but it has already arrived all over Europe. Companies and civil administrations reconsidering for how long they will use the services of Microsoft and other IT giants, supply chain adjustments to reduce US dependencies, and while we may be buying US arms for which no alternatives exist yet, "US free" has become a hot selling point; such weapon substitutes will be developed and bought to reduce dependencies. All this will weaken the US, not make it stronger, even if it takes 20 years to come into full effect. In short, Trump and his gang managed to detonate within a year much of America's last 100 years of foreign diplomacy efforts.

The two million drones will be pissed away within two years, and then the other army still has 80 of its 100 tanks if they managed to protect them well. At which point you're facing a heavy brigade with not much to counter it. Of course you meant something different, but your simple example is not a very good one. You may want to come up with a better one.

Some of the newer graphics cards are also pretty hard on the PSUs with frequent max peaks while nominal power demand stays within specs. NVidia seems to shave off more and more of the safety margins.

You're describing Win 8.0; 8.1 was a marked improvement (from, admittedly, a shitty start; going there from near-perfection in Win 7 usability was one of the big WTF moments in IT history).

Not sure why you're linking monitor synchronization with the need for more RAM. Are you sure the two are linked?

Another option is a CYA motivation: They didn't lift a finger to protect Maduro (or at least were very ineffective), and are now telling tall tales about how it was absolutely impossible to do anything to justify their existence after this disaster (from their prespective).

Trump's already on record admitting that Greenland's ice sheet is his emotional support blanket.

(If you ignore the question how they could "sneak up" to the railyard through a tunnel to approximately 50m distance.) But yeah, four tanks and the element of surprise makes for a rather quick and decisive engagement. That they got right. It's one of those in the "good films with one tank" category. I like it, but it's a "corrupt smalltown sheriff" film, not about tanks in combat. The English Patient deserves a honorable mention. While the tanks aren's taking center stage, they are surprisingly prominent and abundant, and it's a good film.

How about a good dose of Ctrl+F5

a. I think it's alarming even that such a law is being seriously considered (and yet, here we are) b. I don't think that it'll stop him

There are some that try harder than others, but the reality is that tank combat is really hard - maybe impossible - to transfer adequately to the silver screen. You mentioned the cramped interior; the recent German "Tiger" and also "Fury" get that right, and they show that with adequate sets, it's possible to film the crew in action - as long as you don't try that in a real tank because the location just doesn't allow for cameras. You have to have a set where you can detach wall segments to insert your camera lens. Where it gets difficult is to show tactical employment of tanks realistically and engaging for the audience at the same time. When you want to see the faces of the actors but have a minimum still justifiable distance of 25m between each tank, four tank commanders are up to 100m apart from each other, and their targets are 10 to 30 times even farther away. You can switch to a helicopter perspective, but then you lose connection with the crews as their tanks shrink to lego piece size on the big screen, and to ants for the targets. Making a realistic film with tanks is possible. Making a good film with one tank is possible. Making a good film with tanks that realistically show a tank platoon or even a company operate is a challenge that, IMO, nobody has mastered. Fury came close in the first 30 minutes, and then World of Tanks took over (or whatever the hell went on in the script writers' minds). The "T-34" film overdid it with the slow-motion CGI bullet time. "The Beast" is a theater piece turned into a film - maybe, emotionally, the best tank film ever, but realistic it is not. "White Tiger", I still can't make up my mind if it's a good film. It has a few good tank scenes in it, but overly realistic it isn't. "Kellys Heroes" is schlock; fun schlock, but schlock nevertheless. "Patton" at least shows massed armor in action, but of course, being pre-CGI and given the fact that while it had an impressive budget, that budget still had limits, you have the same tanks for both sides and the Battle of the Bulge wasn't exactly a model case for armored warfare, given the restrictive terrain.

If I had to make a prediction, it would be "this year, probably shortly before the end of the arctic summer". I don't think his cabinet is convinced, but I'm equally certain that they will help him nevertheless to get it done bypassing congress because they know that congress will stop this madness in its tracks. The build-up of stupid, threadbare propaganda (like Miller's wife with "Soon", Miller's beyond ridiculous questioning of Denmark's legitimacy of possession) is to me the tell-tale sign that Trump is dead set on this. Is it imaginable that it won't happen? Sure. But I think the odds are >50% that Trump will do the move.

Continue your valuable musings about Einstein here

A bit part of my argument is that Trump is known as a notorious liar, and that the 1951 Greenland treaty already allows the US to increase their military presence to pretty much whatever they want. Yet, he's yapping about "need to have clay". It's inconsistent, therefore his "justifications" are clearly recognizable as made up to obfuscate the minds of the gullible and the apathetic.