I think Ukraine can only pull off a big attack like this a few times. Not because they’re incapable, or Russia, now aware of the method, can defend against it, but because each attack generates data. The more data you have, the greater the ability to analyze and spot patterns, which puts Ukrainian operators at risk.

Although it would be excellent if another attack happened very soon against another relatively irreplaceable Russian asset. But a campaign of smaller scale harassment throughout the country would suffice to harm morale and keep supply constraints, well, constrained.

Disclaimer, I’m just a rando with a search habit. Not like, a professional analyst.

It’s maybe not the dumbest to use them in this way - their carrying capacity meant fewer sorties per pound of munition delivered.

But also, it seems like Russia is picking and choosing how it deploys resources, presumably so its more advanced jets do not have to be put at risk (there are various reasons for why that may be so - the linked article discusses them).

The other side of it is that keeping the strategic fleet demonstrably in use signals to other countries that Russia may be able to back up their nuclear saber-rattling.

Ope, now I regret deleting my edited explanation! That is an excellent response to my accidental comment.

My immediate thought was “That’s not all they’re going to be hitting…”

deleted by creator

Or mastodon.

I dug a bit deeper still after the above comment, and my additional findings ostensibly seem to contradict your sentiments, but actually lend credence to them.

Quoting myself (roughly) -

It looks like they ran out of ATACMS in March and the U.S. has been sending the significantly less effective GLSDB as a replacement.

Well, shit.

Biden did that.

I’ll have at recalibrate my thoughts a bit.

I misread the headline as “dead ghost” initially.

Your idea + my misreading = what poltergeists refer to as a horror movie.

Edit: After reading the article, it sounds like a horror movie already. I hope all parties involved get the help they need.

Yeah - I mean. I’m not an economic analyst by any means, but a lot of people keep expecting a housing market “correction” in the U.S., but one keeps not materializing.

Usually consumer sentiment is self-fulfilling, but the market and the government seem intent on white knuckling their way through this, through whatever shenanigans they have to pull. Ultimately, I sort of think a hyperinflation scenario is becoming more likely.

My presumption is he’s throwing a fit because Greenland signed a mineral rights deal with the EU.

That’s unlikely to happen, and in my layperson’s understanding, that’s probably as bad as a collapse in housing prices.

The U.S. housing market is currently supply constrained, according to this Brookings podcast.

Between the above supply constraints, corporations/venture capital funds snapping up houses, yo-yoing tariffs either driving up costs or creating uncertainty for builders, and climate change rendering millions of homes uninsurable/unfixable in case of disaster, the demand will only increase.

At the same time, a weakening dollar and soaring rates will make houses more expensive to buy and finance.

There will be a real-estate reckoning. I just don’t see it happening irrespective of other factors. I’m more worried about people who don’t have a house or don’t have some way to protect themselves from the economic hell that has yet to unfold.

I don’t disagree that there is a strategy of downplaying not just Biden’s, but every politician’s health conditions.

I used to have this absolutely incredible writing professor, who, at 85, told us on the first day of class that he was dying, and had been for 4 years. He even had a blog about his reflections on mortality that he invited us to read. He had prostate cancer. I don’t remember the details, but they couldn’t operate to remove it or do chemo, but it was the kind that is hormone sensitive. They gave him a drug that destroyed his body’s ability to produce testosterone, so the cancer just stopped growing. He died at 90 - 9 years after his diagnosis. 10% extra life for him.

No two people and prognosis’ are alike but the possibility exists they might be telling the truth about managing it.

Loss of the dollar as the world reserve currency, and hyperinflation go BRRRRR.

Seeing headlines before reading the articles, I thought “could they be growing a conscience?”

Silly, silly me.

For high steaks work, trust A1.

Your comment made me think of a video my wife showed me last week. I’m linking to an article about it, but the article contains a link to the video, which is hosted on X.

‘Long live everyone’: Everyone’s obsessed with this Indian teen’s reply to a reporter who tried to make him call for Pakistan’s destruction - DailyDot

I was just thinking about Adafruit, and how pissed they must be.

This is a weird connection to make, but since this started happening, my wife and I have been unintentionally saving money.

I don’t think we’re doing it ‘on purpose’, but instead of the usual stream of random frivolity, we’re just sort of trimming back, and as a result, find ourselves with extra money to transfer to savings when we look at our accounts.
I think we’re both just trying to be ready, should we need extra resources for whatever reason.

I know of an organization attached to a prestigious university that solely exists because at the end of some billionaire’s life, he decided he wanted to chuck some cash into a foundation to try to burnish his image.

But he was so morally corrupt that his version of helping others was to mandate that the foundation focus on “helping” people in developing countries find business opportunities.
Read: they assess how people and environments can be exploited for capitalism while focusing on telling stories about how that exploitation improved the quality of life for people there.
Most of the professors who work with the foundation are very wealthy from their non-academic pursuits.