I mean, this guy must live in an insane bubble if he doesn’t understand that this will help Mamdami more than if he had endorsed them. I am sure NYC voters will just rally around a guy who, through funding, owns its allegiance to billionaires.
The establishment pushing against him is a good thing. Think about what happened the first time Trump announced his candidacy. Voters love to vote for candidates that the establishment hates.
I don’t want to talk ethics, but as a rule of thumb, winning a war is easier if you take out strategic targets than if you target civilians. Targeting civilians is what you do if your weapons aren’t precise enough to target tanks/planes etc.
Just to add that I have become quite allergic to the “pre-emptive strike”, “weapons of mass destruction “ justification for war. Have we learned nothing?
I have to say this I don’t buy this constant nuclear threat. Iran supposedly started their nuclear program 30 years ago. Either they have a bomb or they will never get it. It doesn’t take that long to replicate what other countries did in a few years.
You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.
I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.
I mean, yes, but by the same token beer is far less lethal than whiskey. Our response to that is to sell beer in pints and whiskey in smaller glasses. Just wondering why such an approach would be impossible for drugs.
I do not think they will pass a constitutional amendment, so if Trump runs this will end up in court. I would like to see SC struggling to handle Obamas and Trumps case together.
Capitalism was supposed to be our economic system, not our political system.
Very nice explanation and only nitpicking, but saying that Thorium is much much safer than uranium implies that uranium nuclear plants are unsafe. In reality uranium nuclear power has one of the best safety records in energy production.
Tariffs are at 245 percent. I doubt they can do much in terms of adding their own surcharges.
Doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice. The US is preying on its closest allies, threatening to annex Canada, and Greenland. China is not.
I think this independence is an illusion in the current globalised environment and it would be very difficult to attain it even for a very large country like the US (and completely out of reach for small countries).
Let’s take the example of food. Does your country depend on imports of fertiliser? What about animal feed (soy beans)? I am guessing the answer to both these questions yes.
The point is, we are in this together. For a small nation this is trivially obvious, but larger nations like to pretend they can do things alone. And then you get people like Trump that play on these sentiments.
I actually think the security guarantee is an illusion. If we are all dependent on one another we’re less likely to go to war. Conversely, If all countries start competing over the same resources the chances of war increase
The solution to chess is almost certainly a draw, since this is what all top engine chess converges to. Otherwise you are completely correct: chess is unsolved and will likely never be solved.