RSD1

I read one or two of his early books ages ago—Bangkok 8 and possibly Bangkok Tattoo. I wasn’t really over the moon with either of them. They were okay, readable, but not particularly memorable. Meanwhile, I purposely split that list into two groups. The first ten are based on deeper subjects, while the second set of ten focuses on more superficial, typical go-to topics that authors gravitate toward when trying to sell lots of books to sex tourists and wannabe denizens—more in line with the genre Burnett focuses on.

Thank you for the suggestions, I'll check them out.

Fiction is often a really good type of reading if you want to learn about the nuances of a local society and customs. The stories are of course not real, but you can often learn a lot more about a place from a fictional novel than you can from some non-fiction writing.

Pretty. Decorative, small wooden boxes?

It's on the list of 20 already: Sex tourism, nightlife, and go-go bars

Thanks! But none of the other 20 I listed?

I’ve read a lot of fictional novels about Thailand over the years, and based on that, I’ve put together a list of what I consider to be the 20 most common themes authors tend to write about. Originally, I was just going to make a post listing all 20 and ask which ones resonate with people the most, but to make it easier for everyone to share their opinions, I decided to set it up as a poll instead. The idea is simple: if you enjoy reading fiction or novels, which topics or themes about Thailand do you find most engaging from the list of 20? The poll allows you to select as many options as you’d like, so you don’t have to narrow down your choice to just one or two. Please note that this is about fictional topics for reading rather than general subjects of interest about Thailand. Also, if there are any other themes or ideas you’d like to discuss regarding fictional writing about Thailand, feel free to share them below.

It's definitely not mockery and I don't think they're trying to be cute. I think they're actually trying to be more respectful. In a way, they are talking to you as if they were another man on your own level by breaking down the gender barrier. Think of it as a woman in English saying "yes, sir." Anyway, don't overthink it. It happens to me sometimes too, and it never bothers me at all.

Lol.

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.”