Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CA
Posts
0
Comments
2,048
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Also just doctrine being subject to rapid change to suit changing realities during times of war. As an example, we can look to WW1 to see rapidly changing doctrines as it became understood to be necessary, like when the maneuver warfare of the Napoleonic Era quickly shifted to trench warfare.

  • Probably not.

    I also don't see why any spacefaring civilization would have any interest in colonizing inhabited planets. It would just be more hassle for the same resources you could get on lots and lots of planets. If they have the technology for interstellar flight, they can probably extract whatever they want from wherever they want. Regarding living space, you wouldn't even need planets, there are far more efficient structures you could devise when you don't have to limit yourself to only what nature has provided.

  • It makes more sense with restaurant reviews. The business environment is so intensely competitive that any restaurant actually deserving of 1-2 stars would be much more likely to eventually go out of business.

    So, over a long enough period of time, you'd wind up with mostly 3-5 star places, with some exceptions existing for restaurants that can survive without the benefit of repeat customers. (tourist trap places, places operated as some kind of money laundering operation, etc)

  • Maybe, but we also got Reaganomics and the beginning of that cultural shift towards greed being good. I suppose you could make a case that we also had HW Bush, the last repub afaik to actually raise taxes on the wealthy, helping Clinton balance the budget in the 90s.

    Also had the Satanic Panic, though that seems to come back around every so often no matter what.

  • Despite all the fearmongering, it's so far proved unnecessary. Ji is going to look at it in terms of cost/benefit, and as things sit, the costs are high and the benefit of getting a leveled Taiwan is minimal. The diplomatic costs in particular are fairly prohibitive, with China investing so much recently in trying to be a predictable, stable and peaceful world power that other countries can feel good partnering with.

    It would be vastly preferable for all parties involved to maintain the status quo and continue to work towards peaceful reunification in the future. Assuming Taiwan doesn't do anything stupid, this patient approach has no real drawbacks. It did work several times in the past, after all.

  • There's a reason so many poker players wear sunglasses.

    Anyway, try to preempt your emotional reaction. There's always many different flavors of reactions we can have to something really negative, which normally depends heavily on mood. By default, this all just runs unconsciously, but it doesn't have to. Of the many potential options, like anger, sadness, condescending disdain, arrogant bemusement or surprise, you can try to consciously pick one and channel your feelings towards it instead of just letting your feelings run wild.

    Or you can just practice a proper poker face, but that can be really hard. Doable though, just takes a lot of practice. Playing poker would be an effective way to get that practice.

  • You know getting a progressive President wouldn't have gotten us any closer to abortion rights? Unlike Trump, we actually follow our separation of powers principles, which means the Pres has limited authority. You expect us to just ignore court orders and the legislature like Trump does or something?

    A law enshrining abortion rights would require a filibuster-proof Senate majority and control of the House.

    I'm all for being critical of the DNC, but we should be clear-eyed on how governing actually works. Also, pretty hard to say Harris was less progressive than Obama, her Senate voting record was pretty damn progressive.