Your thinking is illogical. The visibility of celebrities is much higher than for anyone "around us." Think of trees fallen in the forest. At an altitude of a hundred feet, they would be obvious. In the middle of dense forest, you would be lucky to encounter one.
Secondly, for cultural reasons (social visibility, herd-following), a celebrity is more likely to have taken the vaxx, and their numbers could be high. In any case, there is no substance to the supposition that their numbers are statistically abnormal.
A "kill switch" is absurd nonsense...and a testimonial to the farther limits of an overworked imagination. Likewise, we don't "all know" that any of these celebrities sold their soul to Satan. We may imagine it, but we don't know it. We laugh at Africans who believe in witchcraft (and many do), but we simply have our own preference for witches and evil spells.
B-21 is a modern replacement for the B-2. We only have a relatively small number of B-2s (built only 21, 34 years ago, and maybe 19 are still flying). Supposed to get more B-21s to replace them.
Not long before Navalny's death, I read something about the apparent fact that he is a traditional Nazi supporter (per Ukraine) and that the Russians had caught him in the act of collaborating with the U.S. to prepare/conduct a Maidan revolution in Russia. This would seem to suggest the death is a pre-emptive strike at cementing his good reputation; more useful as a hallowed martyr than as a confirmed foreign agent and Nazi sympathizer. "In order to save his reputation, we had to kill him." Not incredible, in my view.
The platform at the rally is in the outline of a B-21 bomber (new), not a B-2 (old). The photo is of a B-2.
It's long been known that no stealth aircraft can defeat long-wave radar. The radar elicits a resonant response from the airframe based on matchup with the wavelength of the beam. But long-wave radars are not terribly accurate in directional resolution. Stealthiness is still good against them to a point.
What is not generally understood is that all this is one thing, but the clinch is another thing. In the clinch, the question is whether a missile or targeting system operating at shorter wavelengths can lock on to the stealthy aircraft, and good stealth prevents this. So, you have a situation where you may detect something coming---but you don't have the means to engage it.
I take it as indication that the dog was being abused. Aggressive reactions are typically a fear response. I will bet the dog was being emotionally starved and subject to corporal punishment without any relationship to behavioral training (thus unpredictable and terrorizing).
How many dog trainers have dementia?
You are not thinking straight. Even corrupt organizations have interests in common with the people they are supposed to serve. I made the point that the FBI might have perceived the event as a possible cyberattack, and that would authentically get their interest. As it turns out to be a system glitch, their interest should evaporate.
Not a B-2 (old hat). It is the new B-21.
You can't "test" operational interfaces until you attempt to interoperate. Do all the testing you want, but the phone system only works when you can dial up someone and they answer.
What I am addressing is the tendency for people to react by declaring something "un-straight" when it is straight. They are not saying "clothes are blue." They are saying, "nah, clothes are not red."
We all have our experiences. I have had a lot of (unpleasant) experience with a highly-centralized multiple-access data system: lots and lots of users, spread over a national geography, all working on the same database. Like a telephone system. The gnashing of teeth whenever the application went through an "update" was epic. But it was temporary.
Why should they mention it, if the problem was resolved and transparency was restored? Problem fixed, on with the show. Why would anyone wait 9 hours to vet the public statement? To let the legal staff do their job and maybe get clearance from the government. There was no urgency once the problem was solved. (Old principle: bad news must be known immediately; good news can be known soon.)
The FBI would have a plausible interest in any event that would seemingly jeopardize national levels of telecommunication. It could have been the FCC, but the FBI has become an all-purpose busy-body, especially if the event was a cyberattack. Them being interested is no more surprising than a dog sniffing at roadkill.
Elon Musk tweets what he wants and Q is in the past. So what? The thinking on this page is that there are no coincidences---which totally conflicts with physics and general experience. There is so much Rorschach blot reading going on with Elon Musk and Q posts, there is no way to prove anything objective about them.
If there was more to the story...there would be more to the story. But there isn't. Comms are back to normal after a brief interruption. I have to deal with family communication to an African nation where the electric power is subject to "load shedding" and the internet connectivity is a crap shoot. Not good for business or daily life, but people manage. We are lucky to have the system reliability that we presently enjoy. If the people of Zambia had to respond to this problem, they would be overjoyed, praising God, and catching up with delayed messages. Just because you are entertaining questions speaks only to ignorance; it doesn't mean there are "reasons."
You don't know that the "new version failed." It looks more like incompatibility at the system interface level, remediable within hours (as happened). Flipping back to the Last Known Good may not be an answer in the larger scheme of things. Boeing had to fix the problem with the 737 MAX. It couldn't just throw up their hands and fall back on the production of 737 NG models; the NG couldn't address the market that the MAX was designed to compete in.
Clever saying, but how do you prove it is remotely true? On this board, among ignorant minds, something that is straight can be considered "un-straight" by those who don't understand, or those who don't believe that anyone tells the truth.
The requirement was to implement the update. Resorting to a backup copy does not fix the problem. The problem was evidently in the realm of compatibility between AT&T and other carriers. That may have been on a case by case basis (confirming system settings, etc.). Ever had to fix software in real time? I think they did a great job, considering they were probably not anticipating this problem.
Oh, you might think that. Classic backseat driving, always getting it right in retrospect. Companies like AT&T have no interest in drawing attention to internal maintenance matters. Nothing was supposed to happen, so why make a big ado about nothing? That something happened is just a "gosh, darn!" event, and they wrapped it up as quickly as they could. Give it the rest of today and no one will bother to remember it.
It is easy to see that the hardcore skeptical / condemnatory types must have no experience with large scale computer systems.
Let's see...the nation's leading telecommunication company has a hiccup, fixes it within hours, and sends press releases to all the major new agencies. What exactly is so astounding about that?
Verizon, T-Mobile, and other services must interface with AT&T if they are to be interoperable. My phone is AT&T and I'm calling someone on Verizon. How does the signal pass from one to another? There must be "handshakes" between these separate systems in order for them to authenticate users through system ID and passwords. So, yeah, an architecture level system update could affect all these interactions. A classic Y2K-style unplanned hiccup.
Solar flare? Hogwash. Cover story? For what? Paranoid suspicion proves only that you have an overactive imagination and no substantiation. To borrow a phrase from Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar."
What happens to the families and friends of those who were enlisted, but were killed in Ukraine? I have to think this is a festering whistle-blow to come.
That's not due to hospice. That's due to being ripped out of a safe and known environment by a family determined to ignore her. In the face of that, why live? Hospice can be administered at home. And a group home is not hospice; it is a formula for being forgotten. Don't confuse hospice (a plenitude of attention) with being shuffled off somewhere (a dearth of attention).
My wife has seen worse. An aging woman of considerable means living well in a rather palatial house full of good memories and natural beauty outside. But a family eager to acquire and sell the property almost literally pushed the mother out of the house into a group care facility. The ghoulish and predatory behavior of families toward their elderly parents are an inspiration to give up the ghost.
Well, then, what would be the evidence that DeSantis "can't stand" Trump? I've neither seen nor heard anything to that effect. If that were so, why would he endorse Trump? Or are we just reading messages in a lump of laundry? There is way more noise than signal in the world we inhabit.
Of course the usual outcome is death; the person is dying. But it is absurd to suggest that hospice accelerates or causes the process.
Like we should be overawed by the insanity of the media? I recall when JFK installed his brother as Attorney General. Nobody raised a stink.
But not by you, apparently.
Somebody speculated it could be Don Jr. I rather like that idea. Someone he could trust to carry on the program after he bows out. (After being President, Trump could then be Speaker of the House.)
How is attempting to run for VP (uphill on a cliff face) going to help Trump? That's just a distraction and a waste of time, effort, and resources. Why are you concerned about how DeSantis poses, instead of how he helps? His endorsement is already a big help, toward party unity.
No. Logical is the word. You were drawing logically unsupported inferences about the purported victims. All you do here is argue that they are no less likely than anyone to have taken the vaxx. You have no argument against the assymetric public visibility. Physician, heal thyself. (Or pluck the plank from your own eye.)
Rather than debate the issue, you quibble over vocabulary. Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument. But...I don't think you knew that.