bluGill

They hope to scare enough people to get a change. don’t let it work.

I don’t think these reach any refinery so that isn’t an option. What is best is anything that sows confusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/29/debris-from-north-korean-missile-found-in-kharkiv-say-un-sanctions-monitors The UN has now verified this.

The US (and other European partners) is sending BOTH ATACMS for missile launch sites, and also PATRIOT for targeting incoming missiles. Two different systems for a different purpose and Ukraine is getting both.

We know from many sources that North Korea is supplying Russia with missiles. We also know Russia is using missiles on Civilians. Do we really need any second source to connect the two?

One side? Both sides are doing this. The details are different, but both sides are being evil here.

As soon as the armies and governments that buy most of that stuff cares the industry will too. Now money talks end everyone cares about cost more than supply chain so the low cost supply chain wins. Pay more and you can get a different supply chain.

Japan and russia never agreedeto end wwii and have a dispute about some islands.

That missile may be used by Ukraine defending against Russians attackers trying to kill them. Sure people die as a result of your work, but you also allow others to live.

The real unethical thing is for anyone - regardless of where you work - to allow your military weapons to be used for “evil”. (Note that I didn’t define evil)

The whole goal of those changes is tough love to fix all the problems, so short term problems but in 2 years things improve for the better.

Administrations don’t have near as much control over the short term as you seem to think.

Many believe that your so called help for the poor makes things worse for the poor in the long run. You don’t have to agree with their position, but you need to accept that they are reasonable people looking at facts and coming up with a different interpretation.

Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don’t take action? While “we” can do better about killing civilians, whoever “we” is, there is a “someone else” who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.

Try which? I’ve seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don’t have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn’t an easy problem.

That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don’t actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).

Nobody knows how to stop terrorism. There are a lot of hypothesis. However they are either untested in the real world, or they have failed.

It is really hard to do a good studies on diet. You end up with one of two conclusions: “Despite our best efforts we were unable to get our test subjects to follow the required diet”; or “These results may not generalize to the general population who isn’t confined to [a prison cell/hospital bed]”.

We can study how one meal effects your body, but that isn’t really helpful - Does it matter if some diet causes cholesterol to go up/down for a bit and then it returns? And cholesterol is one of those markers where we have enough studies to conclude that high is bad, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that high for a bit and returning to low is also bad. Some things like smoking are such large effects that we can look at general population and make conclusions, but often the effect isn’t that large and so it is believed that some diet is good/bad, but we cannot prove it from data we can collect.

The above is about actual science. Most mainstream diet books at best cherry pick some fact and then take it to an extreme to create some eating plan ignoring all evidence of other facts that might limit how far you can take this one. (that is assuming they start with a fact - just making up facts is common as well) The news media doesn’t care to figure out what is real science and what is made up facts.

It works even with 0 and 00 - but only if you have infinite money and there is no limit to bets. So long as there is finite money, or limited bets you will - statistically - hit a run of losses that exceeds your money.

Maximum bets and the fact that money is limited is what breaks this, once you hit the maximum bet odds are slightly against you winning on that next turn because of the 0 and 00; and so eventually you will lose as you hit running up to the max bet and then lose on that turn.

This is clearly about Hamas andithe various reactions to it. Not invoking Hamas is thus trying to hide something.

Why does everyone support Hamas in this? If Hama hadn’t kidnapped civilians we would not be here. But no everyone only blames Isreal.

sure Isreal should have done things differently, their response should have been better. However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas. There is no neutral as neural serves one side.

Strange how that reputation persists even when they tak, a car made by someone else and put their name on it.