>Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?

No. If they wanted self-defense and sovereignty they should have become stronger not weaker after the revolution.

Killing people that blind women for refusing to wear headscarf is always a good deed.

It may be infeasible to do it, or bad idea because of geopolitical or similar reasons, but no - in Iran's regime case - we are not the baddies.

>> Seems that they are behaving intelligently

You seem to have missed the little detail the US is now at war.

There was a deal with Iran, but Trump throw it away because was closed by Obama and Israel did not like it...

It is really nice to see employees creating lists for the next round of laoffs themselves.

They are in bed with Microsoft not against them. And Nadela is not the sharpest knife in the drawer unlike Bill Gates.

Trump - making heroic efforts to give Newsom the presidency in 2028. Newsom valiantly resisting those efforts.

Newsom really is a royal embarrassment. I'm glad people are finally realizing it.

Try 7 or 8 millennia. The Atlantic slave trade was just a rounding error in all the slaves that have ever been.

Less hypocritical than Defense. US has never been on the defense, always offense since it was renamed in 1947.

The Department of Defense was named in 1949, not 1947, and the thing that it was renamed from was the National Military Establishment, which was newly created in 1947 to be put over the two old military departments (War, which was over the Army only, and Navy, which was over the Navy including the Marine Corps)

At the same time as the NME was created, the Army was split into the Army and Air Force and the Department of War was also split in two, becoming the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force.

Often offensive and also often defensive of others.. so if renaming is on the table, it’s probably most apt to call it the Dept of Security since the vast majority of what it does is maintaining the security umbrella that has helped suppress world war since the last one. Of course, facts or opinions on whether it succeeds on the security front depend on which side of the umbrella you’re on.

And losing at that offense while at it.

USA has never lost a war so far. They just ... get bored and leave eventually.

>. That’s roughly 28 to 35 litres per 100 km, or around 30 litres per hour at cruise speed. This is not a misprint. A truck burns in an hour what a small car burns in a week.

Let me paraphrase - a truck weighting 25 times more than a car burns only 4 times as much fuel per 100km at corresponding cruising speeds.

> At 0.25 kWh/kg, that’s still about 6.4 tonnes of battery — roughly 18 times heavier than the 350 kg diesel tank and fuel it replaces, and 6.4 tonnes of payload that disappears from every trip.

And how many tonnes of internal combustion engine, gearboxes and plumbing? It is not an insignificant matter

A Cat 3406 weighs around 4000lbs and an Eaton 18spd weighs around 1000lbs. So rounding up a bit for accessories and other equipment say 6000lbs total (~2750kg).

throw 350 kg of diesel. So the extra weight is 3 tonnes, not 6. Not peanuts, but I think it is manageable and the math could work, especially if they charge on off peak or surplus electricity.

A diesel electric hybrid, at least naively, makes quite a lot of sense to me. Your generator can be sized such that at full output at its torque peak it's making enough power to push the truck at highway speed up a slight incline (just slightly overpowered for maintaining highway cruise). Batteries take up the slack for starting, pulling hills, etc. Remains to be seen whether it actually works.

Nothing accidental and no oops.