RSD1

Sorry, this conversation with you has been tremendously, fulfilling, and enlightening, but I have to go. I'd love to stick around and read more of your useless, off-topic and false replies, but unfortunately, I have a life.

I have a PHD in economics. And you?

I'm not a lefty and I don't ever want to see your passport. All I asked was where you visited and for how long? You are unable to answer a simple question like that? Really? Let me know when you're done trying to hurl petty insults instead of having a meaningful discussion.

Really, is that all you've got? Whataboutism and a link that does not address the facts? Inflation is on the rise, not on the decline. It was proven yesterday in the numbers. Tariffs will also come into effect on April 1, that's more inflation. And the 25% tariffs just added onto imported cars this week, will be even more inflation. If you rather predict the future and not focus on the present facts, then all indications are that inflation will be much higher by September and not lower. None of the current economic policies in play will reduce inflation.

Why don't you just stay on topic instead of trying to insult? That's the real childish part here. In addition, inflation is higher now than when Biden left office. So it's gone up and not down under Trump. Can you provide any factual information to support any of your false claims? You claim it's going down, but it's going up. You can insult further if that's all you are capable of, but it has no meaningful effect on anything except showing everyone that you don't have any true information to support any of your false statements. You also said you've visited the United States but you've provided zero information to support that. Why? Information needs to be fact based or it's meaningless. Don't you understand that?

You just post consistently, non-factual, delusional information. I've proven it with factual data. There's nothing more to it. Inflation is up, not down. Egg prices don't have any direct impact on measures of inflation anyway. I fully addressed your point and have proven it wrong. I explained using factual information how it was false. Your snide, off-topic snippets are just meaningless, but not only that, you're just embarrassing yourself by being consistently wrong.

Zero to do with him. It's solely bird flu driven.

100% false. The core PCE Price Index, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, rose 0.3% month-over-month and 2.6% year-over-year in January. And then up to 2.7% in February. So it's risen since Trump took office and this measure of inflation excludes egg prices anyway. Eggs could go to $1. Would have zero impact on PCE inflation. Fact.

It just went up in February.

Nice. Where did you visit and for how long?

Have you ever visited America? Not meant to be judgmental. Just curious.

The trend is not good in the numbers released yesterday. This likely contributed to another large, financial markets drop yesterday. Source: https://www.fxstreet.com/news/us-core-pce-inflation-expected-to-remain-sticky-reinforcing-federal-reserves-cautious-stance-on-rate-cuts-202503280600 Excerpt: The core PCE Price Index, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, increased 2.8% on a yearly basis in February, above analysts' forecast and January's increase of 2.7%. On a monthly basis, the PCE Price Index and the core PCE Price Index rose 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively. Source: https://think.ing.com/snaps/us-stagflation-fears-rise-ahead-of-tariff-hit/ Excerpt: US stagflation fears rise ahead of tariff hit. Hot inflation and cooling consumer spending are trends that are likely to be intensified by President Trump's aggressive moves on tariffs and government spending cuts. Stagflation fears are rising and will constrain the Fed's ability to cut rates further. Well today's US data is only inflaming stagflation fears. The Federal Reserve’s favoured inflation measure, the core PCE deflator, has come in hotter than predicted at 0.4% month-on-month while real personal spending comes in softer at just +0.1% MoM and January’s contraction is worse than previously thought – revised down to -0.6% MoM from -0.5%.

Those are all solid points. Also worth considering, based on Spiegel’s reporting, is that it’s safe to assume the personal mobile devices of Hegseth, Waltz, and Gabbard aren’t secure. That means that Signal chat group was essentially an open channel, thus whatever Goldberg at The Atlantic was reading, so were the Russians, the Chinese, and possibly the North Koreans and the Iranians as well. So, if that attack plan had been targeting any of the U.S.’s more formidable adversaries, then chances are none of those American planes would have made it back home. Also, if a blunder of this magnitude had been made by Hegseth, Waltz, and Gabbard’s Russian counterparts, one could safely say they’d have already “fallen out of windows.” In most other parts of the world, you simply don’t make a mistake like that and simply walk away from it.

What’s Present: • Timeline: A detailed sequence of events (1:45 p.m. to 3:36 p.m. ET) with specific actions (e.g., F-18 launches, drone strikes, Tomahawk deployment). • Assets: Clear identification of military hardware (F-18 jets, MQ-9 drones, Tomahawks), indicating the scope and nature of the operation. • Intent: The focus on a “Target Terrorist” and the multi-phase approach suggest a deliberate strike against a high-value target, likely a Houthi figure, with possible secondary objectives (implied by Tomahawks). • Operational Details: Real-time updates (e.g., weather, CENTCOM confirmation) and contingencies (“trigger-based”) show active planning and execution oversight. Is It an Attack Plan? Yes, in a Broad Sense: In military parlance, an “attack plan” doesn’t always require coordinates or target names in every communication. It’s a scheme for employing forces to achieve a specific objective—here, neutralizing a terrorist via airstrikes and missiles. Hegseth’s messages outline the how (assets and timing) and when.

123456 - Six digits is usually preferred, but can be alternated with "abcdef" - "qwerty" is popular too. As well as "password" for both the login name and password. Another popular set of highly secure login credentials: "admin" and "admin".

Following is the information regarding the Signal group text messages published by The Atlantic. These messages, sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, contain specific operational details about U.S. military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. Below is a summary of the key messages attributed to Hegseth, based on the available sources, which outline the attack plans: 1. Message at 11:44 a.m. ET (March 15, 2025) Text: “TEAM UPDATE: TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Translation and Breakdown: “TEAM UPDATE”: Indicates this is a status report intended for a group, likely including advisers or confidants Hegseth was briefing outside official channels. “TIME NOW (1144et)”: Specifies the exact time of the update—11:44 a.m. Eastern Time—serving as a timestamp for operational synchronization. “Weather is FAVORABLE”: Weather conditions (e.g., visibility, wind, cloud cover) are suitable for the planned air and missile strikes. Weather is critical for aviation and precision-guided munitions, suggesting conditions won’t delay the mission. “Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM”: Hegseth has directly communicated with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the military command overseeing operations in the Middle East, including Yemen. This implies he received real-time authorization or updates from the operational authority. “we are a GO for mission launch”: The mission has been officially approved to proceed (“green light”). In military terms, “go/no-go” is a decision point; here, it’s a “go,” meaning all prerequisites (e.g., intelligence, logistics, weather) are met. Definition in Context: This is the initial confirmation of the strike’s feasibility and authorization. It sets the stage for the detailed timeline that follows, showing Hegseth’s access to high-level decision-making and his intent to relay this to the group. 2. Timeline Message – 1345 (1:45 p.m. ET) Text: “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s))” Translation and Breakdown: “1345”: The military uses a 24-hour clock; this is 1:45 p.m. ET, marking the start of the first operational phase. “‘Trigger Based’”: Indicates the strike is contingent on a specific condition or event (the “trigger”), likely the confirmed presence of the target. This suggests flexibility—if the trigger isn’t met, the strike might shift. “F-18 1st Strike Window Starts”: F/A-18 Hornet jets, carrier-based fighter-bombers, begin their attack window at this time. A “strike window” is the timeframe during which the aircraft can engage, based on fuel, positioning, and target availability. “Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location”: The primary target, referred to as the “Target Terrorist,” is at a predetermined site, likely identified through intelligence (e.g., signals or human intel). This is a high-value individual, possibly a Houthi leader. “so SHOULD BE ON TIME”: Hegseth expects the strike to proceed as scheduled, barring unforeseen changes (e.g., the target moving). “also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”: Simultaneously, MQ-9 Reaper drones—unmanned aircraft capable of precision strikes—launch. This indicates a layered attack, combining manned jets and drones for redundancy or multiple targets. Definition in Context: This outlines the opening salvo of the attack, a coordinated strike using F-18 jets and MQ-9 drones, targeting a specific individual. The “trigger-based” nature suggests real-time intelligence is driving the timing, a common tactic in counterterrorism operations. 3. Timeline Message – 1410 (2:10 p.m. ET) Text: “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)” Translation and Breakdown: “1410”: 2:10 p.m. ET, 25 minutes after the first strike window opens. “More F-18s LAUNCH”: A second wave of F-18 jets takes off, likely from a carrier (e.g., in the Red Sea or Arabian Sea). “Launch” here means departure from the base or carrier, not necessarily striking yet. “(2nd strike package)”: A “strike package” is a group of aircraft and munitions tailored for a specific mission segment. This implies a phased approach—different from the first wave, possibly targeting additional sites or providing backup. Definition in Context: This escalates the operation with a second wave of manned aircraft, suggesting either a broader target set or reinforcement for the initial strike. It indicates sustained pressure rather than a single hit. 4. Timeline Message – 1415 (2:15 p.m. ET) Text: “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)” Translation and Breakdown: “1415”: 2:15 p.m. ET, five minutes after the second F-18 launch. “Strike Drones on Target”: The MQ-9 drones, launched at 1:45 p.m., reach their targets and are in position to strike. “On target” means they’re over the designated area, ready to engage. “THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP”: Hegseth emphasizes this as the guaranteed start of kinetic action (bombing), contrasting it with the earlier “trigger-based” flexibility. “pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets”: If the trigger condition was met before 2:15 p.m., bombs might have dropped earlier; otherwise, this is the fixed start time. Definition in Context: This marks the definitive onset of the attack, with drones delivering the first confirmed strikes. It resolves the uncertainty of the “trigger-based” window, ensuring the operation is underway by this point. 5. Timeline Message – 1536 (3:36 p.m. ET) Text: “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched” Translation and Breakdown: “1536”: 3:36 p.m. ET, over an hour after the first bombs drop. “F-18 2nd Strike Starts”: The second wave of F-18s, launched at 2:10 p.m., begins engaging targets. Transit time (about 86 minutes) suggests targets are within a few hundred miles of the launch point, consistent with Yemen from a naval carrier. “also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched”: Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired from ships or submarines (e.g., destroyers in the Red Sea), are introduced. These are long-range, precision weapons often used against fixed targets like command centers or infrastructure. Definition in Context: This phase escalates the attack with the second F-18 wave and introduces sea-based missiles, indicating a mix of tactical (F-18s, drones) and strategic (Tomahawks) strikes. It suggests a multi-pronged assault, possibly hitting both the “Target Terrorist” and Houthi facilities. 6. Additional Note Text: “We are currently clean on OPSEC” Translation and Breakdown: “We are currently clean”: Hegseth believes there are no security breaches or leaks compromising the mission at that moment. “on OPSEC”: Short for “operational security,” a military principle to protect sensitive information (e.g., plans, timing) from adversaries. Ironically, this is stated while sharing details in a chat that included a journalist. Definition in Context: This reflects Hegseth’s confidence that the operation remains secure, despite his own actions undermining that security by sharing specifics in an unsecured forum. Overall Interpretation as “War Plans” or “Attack Plans” - These messages collectively constitute a detailed operational timeline for a military strike, specifying: Assets: F-18 jets, MQ-9 drones, and Tomahawk missiles—standard U.S. hardware for precision strikes. Timing: A phased approach from 1:45 p.m. to 3:36 p.m. ET, with contingencies (“trigger-based”) and fixed points. Target: A high-value individual (“Target Terrorist”) and likely additional Houthi infrastructure (implied by Tomahawks). Coordination: Direct input from CENTCOM, showing Hegseth’s role as a conduit between military command and his group. These details were published by The Atlantic on March 26, 2025, in an article titled “Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal,” authored by Jeffrey Goldberg and Shane Harris. The publication followed denials from Hegseth and other Trump administration officials, who claimed no “war plans” or classified information were shared. The Atlantic released the messages to counter these assertions, arguing that the public interest justified disclosure, especially given the administration’s attempts to downplay the incident. The messages provide a real-time breakdown of the strike timeline, including aircraft types (F-18 jets, MQ-9 drones), missile systems (Tomahawks), and the targeting of a specific individual referred to as the “Target Terrorist.”

It is believed that he was also drunk when he was sending out all those attack plan texts over Signal. He is surely the biggest existential threat now to US National security.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pete-hegseth-mike-waltz-tulsi-gabbard-private-data-and-passwords-of-senior-u-s-security-officials-found-online-a-14221f90-e5c2-48e5-bc63-10b705521fb7 Private contact details of the most important security advisers to U.S. President Donald Trump can be found on the internet. DER SPIEGEL reporters were able to find mobile phone numbers, email addresses and even some passwords belonging to the top officials. To do so, the reporters used commercial people search engines along with hacked customer data that has been published on the web. Those affected by the leaks include National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Most of these numbers and email addresses are apparently still in use, with some of them linked to profiles on social media platforms like Instagram and LinkedIn. They were used to create Dropbox accounts and profiles in apps that track running data. There are also WhatsApp profiles for the respective phone numbers and even Signal accounts in some cases. As such, the reporting has revealed an additional grave, previously unknown security breach at the highest levels in Washington. Hostile intelligence services could use this publicly available data to hack the communications of those affected by installing spyware on their devices. It is thus conceivable that foreign agents were privy to the Signal chat group in which Gabbard, Waltz and Hegseth discussed a military strike. Numbers Linked to Signal Accounts It remains unclear, however, whether this extremely problematic chat was conducted using Signal accounts linked to the private telephone numbers of the officials involved. Tulsi Gabbard has declined to comment. DER SPIEGEL reporting has demonstrated, though, that privately used and publicly accessible telephone numbers belonging to her and Waltz are, in fact, linked to Signal accounts. The U.S. newsmagazine The Atlantic revealed on Monday that Gabbard, Waltz and Hegseth, along with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and additional officials, discussed an imminent military strike against the Houthi militia in Yemen in a Signal chat. The information shared among the participants included intelligence information and precise attack plans. According to the Atlantic, Waltz added the editor-in-chief of the magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat group. Precisely why he did so remains unclear. The White House confirmed the scandal after the fact. Trump insisted that it did not include classified content, a question that is of particular relevance since members of the U.S. government are not permitted to share such information over Signal. The U.S. special envoy for Ukraine and the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, was even in Russia while participating in the chat group. DER SPIEGEL was able to find some of the contact information for Gabbard, Hegseth and Waltz in commercial databases, while other information was in so-called password leaks, which are hardly a rarity on the internet. One example is the 2019 discovery by Troy Hunt, who found 773 million email addresses and more than 21 million passwords in a hacker forum. Since then, there have been numerous additional leaks. Criminals are constantly compiling new collections from hacks, usually to sell them on forums. It was particularly easy for DER SPIEGEL reporters to discover Hegseth’s mobile number and email address. They turned to a commercial provider of contact information that is primarily used by companies for sales, marketing and recruitment. DER SPIEGEL sent the provider a link to Hegseth’s LinkedIn profile and received a Gmail address and a mobile phone number in return, in addition to other information. A search of leaked user data revealed that the email address and, in some cases, even the password associated with it, could be found in over 20 publicly accessible leaks. Using publicly available information, it was possible to verify that the email address was used just a few days ago. The mobile number provided, meanwhile, led to a WhatsApp account that Hegseth apparently only recently deleted. The profile photo showed a shirtless Hegseth in a baseball cap and necklace. Comparisons with other photos of the U.S. secretary of defense using facial recognition software were able to confirm that the photo on the WhatsApp profile was indeed Hegseth. Several Passwords in Leaked Database Waltz’s mobile number and email address could be found using the same service provider. The mobile phone number could even be found using a people search engine popular in the U.S. DER SPIEGEL reporters were also able to find several passwords for Waltz’s email address in leaked databases. The information also led to Waltz’s profiles for Microsoft Teams, LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Signal. National Intelligence Director Gabbard was seemingly more careful with her data than her two male colleagues. She apparently had her own data blocked in the commercial contact search engines that contained the data of Hegseth and Waltz. But her email address was to be found on WikiLeaks and Reddit. Gabbard’s email address is available in more than 10 leaks. One of those also contains a partial telephone number, which, when completed, leads to an active WhatsApp account and a Signal profile. "Exposed data from top politicians can be used by hackers to launch convincing phishing attacks and gain access to devices and various services such as email, chat tools and PayPal,” says Donald Ortmann, a specialist in information security, information procurement and social engineering. He supports companies and authorities following cyberattacks. "In addition, deepfake attacks using images and sound available online can be launched to participate in virtual meetings,” says Ortmann. Compromised accounts also enable hackers to "install malware, monitor communications and attempt political blackmail.” Two Check Marks To protect the private contact information of the U.S. politicians, DER SPIEGEL is not publishing the telephone numbers, email addresses and passwords it found. Furthermore, no tests were performed to determine if the passwords for the email addresses are still active. DER SPIEGEL informed Gabbard, Hegseth and Waltz of its findings. The U.S. Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the National Security Council indicated that the passwords and accounts of Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, had been changed before he joined Congress in 2019. Personal inquiries sent by DER SPIEGEL to the leaked WhatsApp and Signal accounts belonging to Waltz were delivered, according to the confirmation function. His WhatsApp profile photo showed Waltz with two other people in front of a U.S. flag. Shortly after the inquiries were sent, Waltz’s accounts were apparently deactivated; the WhatsApp chat with DER SPIEGEL disappeared. The office of the national intelligence director stated that Tulsi Gabbard’s private data was leaked almost 10 years ago, that she hadn’t used the relevant platforms for several years and that she had changed her passwords several times. DER SPIEGEL reporting, however, found that the private Google account belonging to Gabbard was used as recently as around two weeks ago. Messages sent by DER SPIEGEL to her leaked WhatsApp and Signal accounts were also apparently delivered. Two check marks appeared after they were sent.

Your post was a bit long, but I don't mind, and I slowly read it all. I enjoyed what you wrote, you seem to have done a lot of good in this world already, and I can see that you clearly get it. It must be a fulfilling feeling. Thank you for sharing. Also, no need to leave the site if you have something more in the future that you feel you want to share. Never mind the people who don't get it. You can always ignore them (as I often do in the real world too) as they are not important and you will always find those types everywhere you go, both online and offline.

Agreed, empathy and kindness shown to those who are less fortunate goes a long way. That was part of the emphasis of my OP. A lot of people have posted arguments that they made their money and it is their right to do as they please, and I agree that it is, but it comes down to trying to leave this world as a little bit better of a place than when you arrived. It is not too hard to do and the choice is one's own.

It can be difficult at times, and I try to do what you mentioned. I help people when I can, often buying meals for those who seem to be in need, but sadly, one doesn’t have the means to save the world. I also smile and stay polite, as you said, because I figure their life is hard enough already without someone else making it worse. However, I often choose to ignore many of the middle-class locals in my area who seem unfriendly. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of very wealthy locals, and the street is often lined with high-end sports cars and large European sedans with red number plates. I can’t help but notice how some of them act so self-entitled and treat the people who cater to their needs so poorly. It often makes me uncomfortable. The whole class system dynamic in Thailand can also be unsettling, but unfortunately, it’s something one has to accept. The last thing I ever want to feel though is that I am acting in any way like the wealthy ones.

Does the inequality in Thailand ever make you feel uncomfortable? It does for me sometimes when I am around locals who have so much less means. I guess it weighs on my conscience. For instance, I frequently visit 7-Eleven, almost daily, and fill my basket with ฿600-฿800 worth of items without even glancing at the prices. I just grab what I need, toss it in, and head to the cashier. Yet, I’m aware that the staff at 7-Eleven earn quite modest wages. Many of the food items I casually throw into my basket are things they’ve likely never tried themselves, simply because they’re out of their financial reach. What I spend in just two weeks at 7-Eleven probably equals a full month’s salary for many of them, and that’s only a percentage of my total monthly outgoings, not counting what I spend elsewhere. I tend to visit the same 7-Eleven branches in my area regularly, and the staff recognize me because of how often I’m there. Sometimes, I’ll have a casual chat with them. They’re always friendly and kind, and I never sense any jealousy or distaste towards me, which I truly appreciate. Still, it gnaws at me sometimes knowing they work so much harder than I do, yet the lifestyle I take for granted remains far beyond their grasp. I realize the disparities I’m describing exist throughout Thailand, by any means not just in 7-Eleven. But I think this is one everyday example that captures the stark inequality I encounter so often in this country.

Go Elon! Woo! Woo!

Elon’s Grok is now my favorite AI platform—by far the most accurate of any LLM, hands down. Donny must be fuming that Elon got the number one slot and he didn't. Rigged! Always winning!

Has anyone else noticed how Thailand’s new tax regulations could be harming not just the banking sector but also foreign investment in general? Thai banks are always eager to attract foreign clients and increase deposits, yet these new policies seem to be pushing some of us to reduce our financial exposure rather than expand it. This isn’t just about bank deposits, it also affects foreigners investing in businesses, real estate, and other major assets in Thailand. The country has long encouraged foreign investment, and agencies like the Board of Investment (BOI) actively promote Thailand as a great place to invest. But these new policies seem to be working against that goal. I’m just making some observations here, but under the new system, if you transfer in even a couple hundred thousand baht in a year in assessable income, you’re now obligated to file a tax return, even if not tax is due. For some people, that alone is enough of a deterrent to stop bringing in money altogether. If the government wants to attract foreign capital, they need to do two key things: offer incentives and instill confidence. Right now, these tax changes are doing the opposite, potentially driving investment away rather than bringing it in. Are you in agreement or do you think what they're doing with the tax law changes is a good thing, especially with the talk of possibly also taxing foreigner residents on their worldwide income in the future?