circuscritic

Postal Inspectors are Federal Law enforcement, and while you could argue that their budget hasn't kept up with inflation, it hasn't been cut either.

Point is, while I'll always support the need for the US Post Office, and support employees who work in any capacity to deliver mail, I can't be as charitable with the USPIS when they have the manpower to spare for warrantless surveillance programs.

...why wasn't this handled by the Postal Inspectors?

I assumed someone repeatedly breaking into PO boxes is something they would actually want to investigate...?

Either because it comes across more clearly over comms, or someone flipped a coin.

But, it is called that outside of the military, sometimes...sort of.

I was expecting to read the article and find some seventh level of hell legal trickery bullshit, but it does sound like the organizers fucked up.

John Thurston, the secretary of state, rejected the petition outright, saying that organizers had failed to correctly submit a sworn statement confirming that paid canvassers had been instructed on how to collect signatures.

However, while I may be an expert in bird law, with a focus on dick towel related torts, I don't know shit about Arkansas state law or their regulations for proposing ballot measures.

Maybe someone who is can tell me why this isn't the fault of the organizers, or if some other shenanigans are at play?

Any chance that they submitted the document, but didn't complete some arcane ritual like having it delivered by a female virgin courrier? Or not including a list of the mother's maiden name for every canvasser?

You put so much effort into that post, that I almost feel bad pointing out that you probably should have read the comment I was replying to... you know, the one above my comment.

But, if you're having a hard time locating it, I pasted the relevant quote that I was responding to:

"...opportunity for a movie-like secret mission with a bag full of consumer drones..."

But yeah, I guess if you completely ignore the actual text I was responding to, you might of had a fair point.

Sounds like it'll be family friendly game shows and Christian reality TV.

Honestly, that might actually be a profitable model they could make work, if they don't fuck the infrastructure up, or allow cousin Billy to expose himself to female contestants on 3 different reality shows they're producing.

Yes, and that's what Ukraine is doing at the moment. But they're doing it in the cities like Moscow that actually matter to Putin, and the Russian elites.

The comment I was responding to was talking about taking a lot small drones deeper into Russia, which are places that Putin couldn't give a shit about.

So, if they aren't useful for destroying critical infrastructure, and Putin and the Russian elite don't care about any psychological impact on those civilians, what is the point? Which is why I covered using them to target civilians, and why that would be a bad idea.

Saboteurs and Ukrainian assets inside of Russia are not an unlimited resource. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use their time doing things that actually politically harm Putin, or impact the wider Russian war effort?

I didn't move any goal posts, I've been pretty clear about my views on the general ineffectiveness of using quadcopters to target infrastructure.

But like I said, maybe I'm wrong, and the Ukrainian MoD will have a "Eureka!" moment after reading your comments.

Again, I think you're vastly overestimating the capability of a quadcopter drone to inflict serious damage on hard infrastructure.

But hey, maybe I'm not only wrong, but so are all of the Ukrainian sabotage teams and they'll stumble across your advice here and realize what a great idea it is.

Ignore them. They're just haters who can't handle the fact that despite it's youth, the Osprey is already a legendary platform.

Think of it like the A-10, except instead of repeatedly slaughtering friendly forces, it just regularly kills anyone dumb enough to ride in one, or pilot it.

Acts of sabotage have been happening this entire time, whether or not they're getting covered.

Ukraine has also been running a covert targeted assassination program, which unfortunately got some press coverage some months back due to their legally and morally questionable approach to target selection.

But, it's an existential war for their survival, so I'm not going to moralize about it.

I think you're vastly overestimating the damage possible from the explosive payload a tiny quadcopter can carry, unless your goal is strictly terrorism i.e. intentionally targeting civilians.

Civilians dying as collateral damage during an attack/assignation of a legitimate military target is one thing, targeting civilians is another.

And before you say Russia does, don't forget that Ukraine is dependent upon continued Western support, which is already fragile. It's doubtful that support would survive them explicitly targeting civilians with suicide drones deep inside Russia.