I can understand why the Western media calls something that has an official name of CPC (the Communist Party of China) as CCP (Chinese Communist Party? Not sure here). What puzzles me is - why ordinary people always repeat this wrong abbreviation. Is it like “I never check the sources, I trust everything that Western media publishes”?
It was an intentional propaganda strategy to separate references to the government of an official enemy country from references to that country (see also "the Houthis" and "the Taliban"), and it also looks like "СССР."
The reason why ordinary people parrot it is because that's what it was designed for. The proper term for "CCP" is "China." Referring to the Chinese government as the "CCP" (or the CPC) is like referring to the US government as the "Demoplicans" (or the Democrats and Republicans.)
Instead, we just say "the US government" or "the US administration."
Up until a few years ago the PRC used CCP themselves all the time. It's a handy little shibboleth. If someone calls it CPC they're probably a bot.
CCP is a direct transliteration of the characters, so that's what it started as. Some time later China decided to change it but that's a lot of cultural inertia to move in a different direction.
For something I say maybe a few times a year it’d be a great look to sneeringly point out and talk down to people every time I mention China in the context of international politics.
Unless the Communist Party of the US (I’m not looking up its official name, because it doesn’t matter) wins the next presidential election it’s unlikely that people will call it anything but the CCP. Everyone know what everyone else means.
I do not sell tourism services. I sell software. If there is less foreign tourism in the US, nice places will be less crowded. So, what are my incentives to ask my government to ease foreign entry to my country?
Tourism pays taxes for the government services you receive and specifically pays for upkeep of and infrastructure around attractions that you may find useful yourself.
I don't agree with the premise that the US makes entry for normal tourists particularly onerous though.
That answer would mean that you’re are on drugs. And your being on drugs means that the cop can request your id.
America is a free country. Everyone can ask you for everything. I can ask you for money. A cop can ask you for an id. No need to rush and provide what you were asked for. But that 18 wheeler thing is extremely counterproductive.
I said demand, not ask. Demand requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
Many cops arrest people for not providing identification when they're under no obligation to do so. Those cops should be insulted, and deserve consequences.
I see zero difference between verbal asking, verbal request and verbal demand. Probably that’s because English is not my native language. Could you please provide a sample of each one?
Your second text creates the impression that if the cop arrested you for non-compliance - then what was before was the demand. If yes, my point still stands: insulting the cop who had arrested you will not make him let you go. Probably it can only make your situation worse. Counterproductive, as was said.
Could not gisagree more. Nobody can harm me much by knowing my ITIN. But government surely can torture me in prison by depriving me of my favorite ice cream brand. I have a right to keep it private!
Famous last words. https://t.me/kcpn2014/3890
The [Russian] Analytical Center of KCPN has conducted a large-scale study of the [Ukrainian] hidden military infrastructure, which provides Ukrainian forces with stable communications along the entire line of contact. The focus is on the “BakhmutTelecom” project — a military mobile network operator (3G and 4G) that was deployed practically under our noses back in 2023. We often attribute many of the enemy’s successes to Starlink, although in reality these are the result of organizational, not technological, advantages.
The civilian cover for “BakhmutTelecom” is J&Y LLC, which in fact serves as infrastructure for purely military tasks. The network comprises around 2,500 towers, 36 or 50 meters tall, arranged in three tiers. They are interconnected via underground fiber-optic cables and microwave relay links.
It's true, it was a bit hyperbole. No civilian really knows what's up. Should have stated it accordingly. It's the apparent observer's consensus.
Yet, the Russian cut-off from Starlink was incredibly notable, organizationally and the recovered FP-1/FP-2 drones featured Starlink terminals, so no use denying that.
Ukraine certainly didn't build 3G/4G in occupied territory. Consider the radio horizon for a 50m tower. In proximity to targets, it absolutely can be jammed, and Russia is very capable of doing so. We see none of that in those deep strikes. Those drones seem to be completely resistant to EW, which implies a connection from above (can only be effectively jammed from above AFAIK). The latency seems notable, but stable.
Now, of course, Starlink alone wouldn't have defeated AD by itself, magically. That's mostly good strategy and intel. However, Starlink made those FP-1/FP-2 deep strikes way more effective and simple (compared to using relays and mesh networking, hoping EW hasn't caught up). Starlink allows to have stable video feeds until impact. No need for autonomy, radio tracking, terrain mapping... just a reusable pilot and a cheap drone. That's huge and a significant tech advantage. If Russia had this (and the intel) for their overwhelming numbers of Geran drones, Ukraine would be in a very bad situation, I think.
Apart from that, Starlink was also instrumental in exfiltrating information about the Iranian protests. It's just a jamming/censorship resistant technology evidently effective against most competent adversaries.
That said, due to the importance of Starlink, I think escalation to/focus on orbit denial attacks seems likely, for any nation which can't afford their own LEO sat network, or existentially utilizes censorship/information control. Especially since (low) LEO debris will deorbit rather timely, it's not exactly a permanent damage to human space flight. Therefore Starlink's military success may be self-limiting and temporal, since the satellites themself are not at all immune to asymmetric attacks.
