The US military takes enlistees at 17 and a half years old. Usually from poor families.

I believe the US lets people enlist at 17 (with parental consent) but they don't deploy them to combat before they're 18.

I encourage you to you watch this movie, btw.

And see also:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_Inside_the_Army
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraq_War_resisters

You’re ignoring the fact your article also doesn’t provide source

Which article are you saying doesn't provide a source? I see only two articles linked in this thread and they both refer to several sources 🤔

I am sincerely baffled as to what your perspective about this story is.

Do you believe that EU and US officials are spreading Russian propaganda via the Associated Press about Russia supplying drones to Iran (which, as you said earlier, you believe they do not in fact have the ability to manufacture) and therefore Russia's denial is actually true but also part of their cunning plan to deceive us?

Or what?

Of course Russia denys it

But... just a few hours ago didn't you deny it too? 🤔

("No they aren’t" was your first comment in this thread)

No they aren’t, Russia wouldn’t have purchased thousands of Iranian drones if they could produce them domestically.

[...]

Russia put out propaganda

The original link in this post is to an article by the Associated Press (syndicated on a website owned by Bell Canada) and it cites "U.S. and European officials" as its primary source to support the claim made in the headline that Russia is supplying drones to Iran.

I'm curious: did you call this Russian propaganda after reading only the headline, without actually realizing who is saying what here?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that after you read the article and see that Russia in fact denies sending drones to Iran (and says the seven trucks they just sent have food and medical supplies) you'll probably change your mind and decide that they probably are in fact sending drones.

No, SVG files are not HTML.

~~Please change this post title (currently "today i learned: svg files are literally just html code"), to avoid spreading this incorrect factoid!~~

~~I suggest you change it to "today i learned: svg files are just text in an html-like language" or something like that.~~ edit: thanks OP

SVG is a dialect of XML.

XML and HTML have many similarities, because they both are descendants of SGML. But, as others have noted in this thread, HTML is also not XML. (Except for when it's XHTML...)

Like HTML, SVG also can use CSS, and, in some environments (eg, in browsers, but not in Inkscape) also JavaScript. But, the styles you can specify with CSS in SVG are quite different than those you can specify with CSS in HTML.

Lastly, you can embed SVG in HTML and it will work in (modern) browsers. You cannot embed HTML in SVG, however.

shoutout to the person who reported this post with "Reason: Bot meme, you can't even read it. whoever replies is a bot too" 😂

xkcd#2501:

the famous "This incident will be reported" error was briefly removed last year before being replaced with a less ominous version.

I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

What did he actually say?!