@b575 I think Trump is correct when he says "X wouldn't have done Y if I was president" and I think in this case China won't do this when he's president.

@Shai he's basically giving Russia Ukraine as we speak, he clearly doesn't care about foreign allies getting invaded

@TheAllMemeingEye I don't think he cares much about Taiwan getting invaded. He does care about the massive damage that would to to the US.

@Shai seemingly his strategy is to mitigate the damage by becoming allies with the invader instead

@TheAllMemeingEye You think Trump wants to ally with China?

The whole Ukraine-Russia thing is him trying to ally with Russia as a counterbalance to China (a la Mearsheimer).

@Shai more like he wants to prevent Russia and China to become too good allies. But by the same reasoning, China might as well invade, since Trump is going for them whatever they do

@Phill Including flu shots?

@GazDownright How about him breaking his vow of teetotalism and getting a shot of whiskey?

@TheAllMemeingEye very yes

@GazDownright jim vernacular English is "in very deed". Just so you know.

@jim noted 📝

@NateWatson does this include him running / trying to run himself (and therefore implicitly enforcing his own candidacy)?

@njmkw @Bayesian shouldn't this have be resolved to YES for a while now? He is a White House advisor and a special federal employee. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/18/turmp-elon-musk-doge

@NivlacM new ATH for great value milk $3.06

@TheAllMemeingEye counting on some bird flu comments hitting for this one

@Marnix unfortunately I suspect he's more likely to use that as an excuse to violate animal rights rather than protect it, possibly in the form of culls 😞

@TheAllMemeingEye Oh, absolutely same. I'm expecting him to say something that's sounds pro–animal rights, but definitely not expecting him to do anything pro–animal rights

@njmkw @Bayesian Resolves YES.

@SteveSokolowski @Bayesian Will "everyone pretty much agrees it was just a panic" count as "knowing the cause"?

i'll let steve answer first and if he doesn't I'll settle it

Cool!

@Shai No. There was unquestionably a lot of panic, but there actually were drones in the sky.

As I said below, I think the fairest way to answer this question is: are the citizens of New Jersey confident enough in the answer to know what, if anything, needs to be done in response to the drones? Telling them "it was panic" isn't enough to reveal the cause.

@SteveSokolowski

Is it a requirement that the "cause" explains actual drones in the actual sky or is it enough that the sightings are explained?

@Shai There actually were drones in the sky - public officials, such as mayors, personally witnessed them coming off the ocean.

If there were not actually drones, that would be sufficient to resolve the market - but the reasoning would have to fully explain why mayors in New Jersey said they personally saw drones - by explaining what they actually saw instead.

@SteveSokolowski

If there were not actually drones, that would be sufficient to resolve the market - but the reasoning would have to fully explain why mayors in New Jersey said they personally saw drones - by explaining what they actually saw instead.

This article says they were mostly planes. Which sounds reasonable. But there's not going to be some dramatic event where everyone suddenly comes to a new consensus re the sightings. People will just sort of forget about it. Like last time.

@Shai There's a problem with that conclusion though - the administration itself stated that the FAA had authorized drones for research without saying what they were. So we can't resolve this to YES until that contradiction is resolved.