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.

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.

This answer makes no sense. Sound comes in waves with crests and throughs. In a controlled setting you can harmonize which effectively matches crests to crests and throughs to throughs. This happens in music with choirs, orchestra etc. In that case indeed sounds adds up.

However, with many random sources at many random frequencies you just get chaotic patterns where sound sometimes cancels out and sometimes adds up. No way that the overall result of this is that it adds up in dB. My first approximation would be that if one source emits 1dB and another also emits 1dB, these roughly add up to 1dB.

A very easy test of this is whether you now hear a very loud buzzing in your ear because at this very moment many people talk at the same time. I guess you know the answer.

Isn’t anything in the upper range of what you are able to hear annoying? I.e. when you age 12.5 kHz will be annoying as fuck.

It either happens in the mid-terms or never. If progressives win big, you have a chance of changing DNC leadership.

Fully agree. In fact you can apply this much wider. The only solution to the Earth’s problems is to get rid of all people on it /s.

I don’t think the issue was targeting the wrong states. There was simply so much money that it was impossible to spend it only on battleground states. The bigger issue is the continued focus on traditional media. To win an election you need an army of online trolls not an ad on tv.

Lol at supposedly asking an open question, while simultaneously stipulating that the open rebellion cannot be mentioned. That’s not how open questions work.

What makes you think that? Do you think we are buying made in China artillery shells? Of course the West makes its own. The main difference is that we never expected to need very many of them, because in a typical war the West has air superiority and uses bombs/rockets instead of shells.

Guessing it is common for the state department to send a representative. Perhaps the Secretary of State since it’s an important neighbour. Since it’s campaign time, you could see others going if they believe it helps their reelection bid somehow ( though I don’t know how), but it would not be unusual if only the US ambassador to Mexico is present. I don’t know of any foreign politician that attend the US presidential inauguration.

No that’s not the case. The US actually was a big fan of the pre-Khomeiny government in Iran. Of course Trump did make things worse by tearing up the Iran-nuclear deal.

Removed by mod

First, do no harm? What benefit did the US enjoy from attacking Afghanistan?

Dutch guy here. We had our own 9/11 event when Russians shot MH17 out of the air which contained 200 Dutch people. You know what we did? We prosecuted those responsible (in absentia) and they will be arrested once they enter Dutch soil. No kids were harmed in the process (apart from those on the plane). Israel’s response of collective punishment is bad shit crazy!

I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).

So what? My point was that there were no concrete plans to expand to Ukraine when Putin took Crimea in 2014. If the problem is NATO expansion why invade a country where NATO is not expanding to?

Do you still believe the UK is the empire where the sun never sets?? How the F would the UK even be able to influence these events.

What are you talking about? There were no concrete plans for Ukraine to enter NATO prior to the invasion in 2014.

When you study economics you literally spend 0 hours learning how to predict macroeconomic outcomes such as inflation/gdp growth. The reason is that these systems are too complex to predict well, except in the very short run. Yet policymakers continue to ask economists to make long-run predictions, and many continue to comply.

I personally was asked to be a member of an expert committee for my country’s central bank. For any prediction my truthful answer was: I don’t know, so they kicked me out.

Lol at calling any of that humane. There’s nothing humane about suffocating a man against his will.