IT guy here. The CLI is not something I’d expect the average computer user to use at all. However, for power users and professionals it’s a force multiplier at least, and a prerequisite often.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, IT system and server administration, in the cloud or your own hardware, is often done via the CLI. This is because it’s not that common or convenient to hook up every server in a rack to a monitor to click on stuff. But dialling into it remotely via SSH or even a serial port to perform bootstrapping procedures, troubleshooting and even routine management tasks sometimes, is very quick , easy and reliable.

The other main reason is automation. If I buy 10 servers to power my website, they all need installing and configuring a whole bunch of software, e.g. an Apache web server, DNS, SQL, Active Directory, AV, firewall, networking, and a host of other services. Now imagine doing all of that by hand. You don’t even need to be a professional sysadmin installing server racks for a living for this to be important. Even if you run a couple desktop/servers/Raspberry Pi/NAS at home, they’ll need updating, upgrading or replacing every once in a while. Having to click your way through everything every time you need to (re)configure them gets old very quickly.

GUIs are extremely poor at providing a consistent, predictable, automatable way to do things. They force you to do mostly everything manually and be present to supervise the whole thing. With the CLI you can script out pretty much any task and let it run in the background while you go do other things. I really don’t see CLIs going anywhere anytime soon. I’d say it’s actually the opposite. PowerShell was Microsoft’s way of acknowledging this very fact years ago. The primitive Windows Batch scripting language wasn’t cutting it for anyone, especially Windows Server users who had to painstakingly configure every Win Server install they did manually through a GUI wizard.

Sure, on their own, but are they part of any defence treaties like NATO or have alliances with other countries strong enough to drag them into this conflict with Pakistan and start a world war?

ITT people claiming this could be a WW3 starter. Even if India engaged Pakistan militarily, I fail to see how that would lead to anything larger than a localised conflict.

Like, neither country is geopolitically significant enough for any major players to care at that level. Sure, India getting bogged down in war could affect supply chains around the world, but would any of the heavyweights like US, China, Russia or a semi-relevant NATO country think that would be worth their involvement? If Russia being on year 11 of their military invasion of a NATO-bordering country hasn’t sparked a world war yet, I don’t see how this would either.

Literally the only good thing that could come out of this shit show.

I’m getting really fucking tired of living in interesting times. I’ve lived through 9/11, the 2008 crash, a first Trump term through COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and now a second Trump term through another financial crisis.

Give me a fucking break.

Depends on the tab. Some are not soldered onto the can so I can work with that. For the ones that do, spoons it is.

Oh I listen to them every night, believe me. I don’t mind it anymore. It is true though I’ve never been close enough to smell one.

Foxes. They’re like a cross between cats and dogs, with their cute fluffy tails.

Yes. Molotov, the URSS Commissar for Foreign Affairs, did try to engage France and Britain to form a defensive tripartite pact, which the Western powers ignored.

The Soviets didn’t exactly throw themselves at the German’s arms at first. Stalin was very wary of the Nazis, in fact.

But Hitler practically begged Stalin to buddy up with the Nazis, dangling Poland, Finland, etc. as the proverbial carrot in front of them. The Nazi’s insistence paid off.

Clickbait bullshit. The Department of Defense statement clarifies the US “troops” are just the crew required to operate the air defense battery equipment the US has been supplying to Israel for a while now.

This is not the first time the United States has deployed a THAAD battery to the region. The President directed the military to deploy a THAAD battery to the Middle East last year following the October 7th attacks to defend American troops and interests in the region.

Again, nothing new or different about this. The US is not putting boots on the ground to shoot people up. At least not yet.