Sonori

If it makes you feel any better, modern climate and economic studies have shown that even a full scale nuclear war involving every nuclear power at the height of the Cold War and when nuclear stockpiles were far larger than today we still wouldn’t have come very close to actually killing off all the humans on earth, with the vast majority of the casualties being owed to famine in regions that were/are heavily dependent on western fertilizer. Indeed entire nations in the southern hemisphere tend to get through such senecios without much of an direct effect from world war three.

Mostly this change from earlier predictions came from being able rule out the theory of a nuclear winter as climate modeling became more accurate and we could be sure that the secondary fires from such a war could not carry ash into the upper atmosphere in significant quantities, which was practically shown when a climate change fueled wildfire in Australia got so large that it should have been able to carry the ash into the upper atmosphere under nuclear winter theory but none was observed, validating modern climate models.

Also, dispite what some less scrupulous journalists trying to drum up clicks have posted on the Ukraine War, the Russian government itself hasn’t really made any major signaling moves with regards to bringing nukes into the conflict, and indeed has maintained and repeatedly reiterated Putin’s 2010s no first use policy when asked.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not the result of some greater Russian morals or whatever, but just a consequence of the inherent risk that such posturing could lead to nuclear escalation and breaking the nuclear taboo or even just other nations actually believing they plan to, and such scenarios end very badly for Russia in general and Putin in particular.

I mean, the government has mandated that all cars built since the 90s have to have a lot of computers and sensors for engine monitoring and emissions logging so that ship has long since sailed. Automatic braking is also credited with eliminating something like 1 in 5 fatalities in car accidents, so as long as we have any motorized vehicles around at all I don’t really have a problem with the government requiring manufacturers to spend the extra 20 dollars or so per vehicle it costs them to add a few ultrasonic sensors and a microcontroller it takes to slow the vehicle to the point where a driving into a pedestrian might just be survivable.

I’m not the specific target of the question since my family always turns out to vote, but I’d imagine some of the big ones are people not knowing that they have a legal right in many states to take paid time off work to vote, general apathy, voter suppression making it very difficult to vote in some areas, and given the swing in turnout between presidential and non presidential elections, a lot of people who only pay attention to the presidential elections because they get nationwide coverage dispite your local and district votes bro by a whole lot more important when it comes to effects on your life and keeping extremists from implementing their policies.

I have just the video to fix that, - Dosh Doshington

How could Hamas do this?/s

deleted by creator

Surrender of or the replacement of the government on that land or resources through military might either directly or indirectly is however the way control over those resources is achieved, and no, I am not just taking about total war, as one of my examples there was the Falkland’s war, which was not even close to a total war for either side.

Moreover your definition would seem not to apply to the current Iran- Israel conflict, as it is being discussed and decided on a case by case basis for both sides instead of an open and declared conflict.

All of the above are cases of one nations government killing a handful of another’s people for minor political posturing, and are all far more similar in scale to each other than say the US-Vietnam, Ukrainian, or even the undeclared Falklands war.

If the ultimate goal of a war is to force one nation
or group to surrender to another through military might, then I don’t think anyone in Israel expected Iran to surrender to them after they ‘accidentally’ blew up an embassy, nor do I expect anyone in Iran to have expected Israel to send an offer of surrender after they launched a single wave of largely outdated missiles against a handful of airfields.

In practice there are of course secondary effects, but the primary political motivation is internal, not external. Iran doesn’t expect Israel to surrender, but primarily wishes to reassure its public and keys to power that it can respond to military aggression. Israel does not wish Iran to surrender and end the ‘war’, it wishes to commit the US to giving it more resources while finding a situation in which it can play the victim.

So yes, I would say it is far more similar in scale, scope, and goal to assassinating a foreign citizen or sending a bunch of soldiers to beat another off ‘your’ land with nail studded sticks than it is sending tens of thousands of soldiers to occupy territory and replace the local government with your own.

Yes, but a handful of conventional missiles going back and forth against symbolic targets is not a very useful definition of a war, much less a world war, if for no other reason than it is to broad to be useful. The on again/off again three way between India/China/Pakistan comes to mind, as might India and Canada if the definition goes much beyond that. The word war tends to imply that nations don’t have active trade between them for instance, and generally implies that at least one side is attempting to achieve some sort of military victory.

Even then, nations had engaged in total war for thousands of years, a World war is a war involving total war and major combat all over the world with few truly neutral nations. Nato/Japan/Korea/India vs Russia/China engageing in total war would probably count, but any definition kind of needs to not include conflicts like Korea or any of the internal European ones to make sense.

This actually happens a lot more frequently than one might think. Offhand in the US alone beyond the Sunshine Skyway and Baltimore Key collapses in the last half century we’ve seen the I-40, Queen Isabella Causeway, and Bayou Canot passenger rail collapses after a ship or barge collision.

The closest parrel so far though might be the Tazman bridge collapse in Hobart, Australia, as that also involved a oceangoing freighter impacting a intracity bridge at night.

The main similarity to Sunshine Skyway here would be that it appears the bridge was built at the same time and from the same template. Overall though, when a building sized chunk of steel designed to crash though walls of water bigger than it is meets a spindly structure designed to primarily withstand wind and snow the results tend to end badly.

That’s why modern post-skyway dolphins or bartier islands are so important, but they’re expensive and at a time when we have generally failed to fund even basic preventative maintenance it’s hard to find the funds for expensive systems that may never be used. After all, the bridge has been fine for decades without, right?

We’ve seen the largest real wage growth among the lowest income workers since the 60s. Up until recently the real wage gain was actually entirely seen in essential, unionized, and low income workers, with the rich actually seeing real wage decreases in that time. Higher inflation is obviously going to be a lot bigger problem for owners than workers. It’s just the trend has a really long way to go to make for half a century of falling.

Most of the recent change in AI has been owed to Openai’s approach of combining a more primitive transformer with going from all the books they could pirate with GPT3 to the entire text interment with GPT4. Smaller subject specific models have made relatively little progress in the last ten to fifteen years, so I don’t think a chatbot like GPT4 that regurgitates more specific information with high accuracy is likely to be on the table anytime soon.

A better search engine seems far more suited to such a task than a generitive system anyway.

Removed by mod

No, I am pretty sure that the resulting airline would then need to merge with Rianair to achieve that dream.

If Israel is trying to target Hamas, why by their own admission have the majority of the bombs and artillery systems fired been systems that lack the accuracy necessary to target a specific vehicle or even building?

Why does the IDF refuse to send forces into these soposed tunnel networks in order to actually capture Hamas commanders for the intelligence necessary to actually target them?

Why are the refugees constantly being pushed closer and closer to the Egyptian border when that is the ONLY part of Gaza that has ever needed to be secured in order to stop the flow of all Iranian weapons into Gaza?

Why shut off power and water, actions which can only work to strengthen Hamas’s support among the civilian population?

Why limit IDF support and protection to humanitarian aid convoys to such an extreme that even the US has had to resort to air power because it can’t get through Israeli territory?

The definition of genocide does not and has never required that a force try and kill every last person of the targeted population, only that they try and expel or erase them from the population.

It’s about the level of support most civilian populations tend to show towards an invading force that’s actively bombing them. How many civlians during the German Blitz do you think would have supported trading Dover to the Nazi’s in exchange for a temporary ceasefire? How about for a second time after the first ceasefire was broken by another ground invasion?

A lot of Ukrainians lived in the occupied regions before been being forced from their homes. Plenty more currently live in the areas that Russia has officially declared as part of its territory but which are currently held by Ukraine. Far from some lines on a map, a very large part of the population have at least one family member who didn’t flee faster than the Russians during the initial attack and who either have been living in fear, had their children taken, or were shot in the street. In both of the first two situations, people tend to be very dedicated to the idea of getting their family currently being held by the Russians back.

None of this is likely to convince people to give the people who did it land it has never held on the promise that in a few years the exact same thing will happen again.

They know that Russia is just another nation with a military about equal to theirs, and that ultimately there are dozens of nations with more powerful militaries on their side.

They also know that Russia cannot do this forever. That the weapons Russia now uses were built in nations that are firmly on Ukraine’s side in this conflict. That Russia’s war chest of foreign extange reserves, pool of manpower that have yet to be conscripted, and fields of stockpiled vehicles continue to get smaller every day. That the Russian military is useing older and older vehicles at the same time that the Ukrainian military is using newer and newer ones.

Russia has been forced to cut its losses on the battlefield before after all, it is neither impossible nor unlikely that it will again.

But the extra dollar less in taxes won’t do anything about shrinking wages or raising housing costs and you’ll just be back to where you were when your employer pays you less because after all, taxes are so much lower now.

Except we’ve already cut taxes to half to a third of what they were in the 60s, and most people made more than enough to spend on food then.

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the money would be spent on food aid. After the fall of the Soviet Union for instance, congress explicitly passed a law preventing spending on defense from being redirected toward domestic issues. A large deficit also wasn’t seen as much of an issue when we halved the corporate tax rate in 2017.