How would you tackle that? Unless you build a really intelligent system that’s allowed to interpret and reword and understand the significance (or lack thereof) of emojis in context, it sounds tough. Like, generally speaking, you just wouldn’t be able to tell how important an emoji is to the message, when writing an algorithm.
They have alcohol at airports? That’s so weird.
Well that’s what I get for not checking my info!
Thanks for the correction.
They got paranoid about nuclear and closed down all their nuclear plants. They intensified fossil fuel power production because they didn’t have enough renewable power. Then prices went up due to the war end they had an oh shit moment.
I suspect they have something to gain by fueling a climate of geopolitical tension. Maybe they hope someone will turn to them because they’re scared?
I’m not sure what exactly but I’ve got a feeling we’re underestimating their intelligence when we say they’re just posturing or being silly.
But then again, several years ago people thought Trump and Musk had a plan and were just posturing as idiots while playing 4D chess. How wrong they were.
I may just be giving the Chinese government too much credit… But I’m leaning towards no.
My understanding of Afghanistan’s complex situation isn’t sufficient to confirm or deny, sorry.
“This document not only violates Afghanistan’s domestic laws but also broadly contravenes all 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
They didn’t think it could be done, but I knew I could do it. All 30 articles in one law!
— A Taliban, probably
Not sure how right or wrong that is when taking into account the more moderate sections of it, but in this particular case, as the article says, it’s not really about Islam. The holy texts don’t really call for any of this.
A few days? Depending on the person’s condition, it might turn out badly.
First, start with one day. Second, and most importantly, consult with a medical professional to make sure you don’t have any counter-indications.
I’m talking about things that are possible. There wasn’t any physically unavoidable reason the colonization of North America had to turn into the mess it did.
It was sparsely populated. It would have been possible for Europeans to negotiate in good faith, not kick people out of where they lived, and fairly compensate for any harm caused.
And in fact, while overall the result was overall pretty damn deplorable, you can dig in history and find some examples where it went well, at least for a while.
My point is that it’s not that settling is not inherently borderline an act of war. It can easily, and it often does, turn out badly, no one’s arguing against that.
But even though that’s the case, there are degrees to these things. Between literal genocide and cultural harm, for instance.
Am I arguing that anyone SHOULD settle any area? Not really. But I’m also not willing to put literally every case in the same basket.
Well you can send settlers to an empty desert. You can also send settlers to a sparsely inhabited land and have them get along with the locals. It’s not like it’s physically impossible.
I see the concept of settler as someone who goes live somewhere where there aren’t many people, not a role where conflict is a major part of the thing.
West Bank settlers sent by Israel were already highly questionable, but if they start doing things like this, they’re just soldiers with extra steps.
This is speculation. I’m not a physicist.
Gravitational effects. It would almost certainly disturb a lot of asteroids and comets into new orbits. It wouldn’t be a catastrophe for Earth , given the protection of the gas giants, but it would probably increase risks for the next few decades/centuries/millenniums. Depending on the exact trajectory of the planet, it would probably also disturb other planets’ orbits a little. Anything radically different would be unlikely, but maybe something light and relatively unstable like Mercury would go nuts. As for Earth, in the likeliest scenarios, at most maybe the length of a year is altered.
The collision (perfectly head-on). It vastly depends on the speed. If it’s very slow, it’ll probably be diverted from the sun by the other planets and solar winds. If it’s fast but not relativistic, it’ll probably cause massive solar flares and very obvious sun spots for a while. At relativistic speeds (a sizeable fraction of the speed of light), though, it would be a lot of energy. Something big would probably happen when the extremely fast planet smashes into the dense core of the sun, probably. I’m not sure what though. Maybe it would temporarily strengthen fusion and cause some sort of micro supernova?
The collision(glancing blow). The sun is massive but most of its volume is pretty wispy. Most of its volume is a lot less dense than a planet, so the planet would likely have a pretty dramatic effect on it. If it’s fast enough, it might even come out on the other side, smashed to pieces by gravitational forces and thermal shock. It might expel a lot of plasma in a stream, like a squishy body shot with the fastest bullet in the world. A bullet on a curved trajectory though, because the proximity to the sun’s core would likely steer it significantly. If the planet was going fast enough to escape despite the friction having it slowed down and the massive gravitational pull, then I could imagine pretty much a shotgun of planet chunks shot through the solar system. It might not hit anything, and probably won’t considering how much of the solar system is empty space, but if it does, it would be catastrophic for, say, Earth.
As for long term effects, if the planet indeed merges into the sun, it would increase the sun’ metallicity (content in elements heavier than helium) by a tiny percentage. It might affect its long term evolution by a very small margin. If it’s a glancing blow that’s not extremely fast and it’s just right to create a mostly stable orbit, it might form a new asteroid belt that may or may not coalesce into a new planet in time.
I could see that if a planet slowly spiraled into it, but the question specifically asks about a direct collision.
Do you really think silicon and iron and other relatively heavy elements can simply be vaporized that quickly?
My favourite answer is “who the hell cares”.
I’ll preface all this by saying I’m not a native speaker of English, so my standards may be a bit lower than average.
Well the rallying support bit was a bit complicated. I also didn’t understand what HMMV meant at first.
That whole thing about a red line confused me at first. I thought you meant the geographical front line of the conflict.
Also it’s still not 100% clear to me what reaching a critical mass means in this context.
Generally speaking the sentences were a bit advanced and seemed to hedge on someone understanding military stuff and having a pretty extensive background on the conflict. I had to reread it attentively to understand, which is not what I’d generally expect of an ELI5 reply.
There’s also that whole thing about foreign weapons and their suppliers having some degree of control over what Ukrainians do with them, which wasn’t obvious to me.
Very complete answer but not very “like I’m five”
Yeesh. The past, ladies and gentlemen. I prefer when people leave it way back then.
That’s because of religion?!
That might be good. With text to speech getting as good as it’s getting, it’s probably getting in the realistic territory, too.