Huh, that's a new one for me. Who told you that?
Candelestine
For the record, while Chamberlain was pursuing appeasement, he was also very rapidly building up his nations warfighting capability. This tends to get glossed-over in secondary school history studies.
No, this plays into Trump's campaign messaging. He himself is running on being the "drain the swamp" guy that will be unpredictable and do things differently from other presidents. Putin is just agreeing with that messaging in a roundabout way.
Ooh, that last line is good. Like, really good.
Ooh, another solid unpopular opinion post. I think this sub is actually starting to get somewhere.
This probably wouldn't actually fully address the problem, but it would likely help. Personally I think they should just be paid better, so they get some reasonable compensation for basically being treated as a lower caste.
Care to share any of this? Sounds to me like fake meme-ey stuff. Can even post it in the local science community if you want, I'm sure we'd be interested over there.
Depends entirely on the design and structure of your forge. Heat can be added in unlimited quantities, and so long as it cannot escape through any openings or through anything weakly insulating, it will simply accumulate ... and accumulate ... and accumulate, as you add more and more joules. The temp will get hotter ... and hotter ... and hotter. What your source of heat is, is irrelevant. This is how the interior of your car gets hotter than the surroundings on a sunny day, despite the source being the same, yes? Containment of the slowly-accumulating heat.
It's like weight. It doesn't matter how heavy a hippo is, if we keep adding hippo ... after hippo ... after hippo to a set of scales, we can eventually reach whatever weight, yes? Accumulation, not individual hippo weight, is what matters. Heat in a forge is no different, assuming your forge contains all the heat produced properly.
And they didn't, they collapsed starting higher up. Check an unedited video.
An idea needs more than a bunch of content made for it to be genuinely fleshed out. It has to try to address counter-arguments. Like, for instance, how it doesn't matter what fuel you use to generate heat in an enclosed space. The temperature an oven reaches is not dependent on what fuel you use to heat it, it's dependent on how well the space insulates and retains heat.
You can melt steel with a wood fire, in an appropriate oven.
This is just my pet theory, but I think the problem is that Russia could not have actually been rapidly defeated. In order for a country to lose a war, they have to stop fighting. They have to surrender. Even had Ukraine retaken all its territory the first year, the Russians would not simply be willing to give up and call it a total loss. They would probably fight on. This would likely result in more Ukrainian attacks into internationally recognized Russian territory, which would further pressure Putin.
Facing that degree of danger, to himself personally as a strongman catastrophically failing to seem strong, he would really only have one option to save face--tactical nuclear weapons to try to re-aquire territory.
So, if preventing the use of nukes is a major goal, then the Russians need to be defeated more slowly, so that by the time the Ukrainians retake their borders, the Russians are more exhausted, with lower war support. This might bring them to the peace table, or they might fall apart. But they're less likely to use tactical nukes to try to turn the war around and start winning again, in a process that would certainly take years.
Basically, the war was always going to take years, no ways to prevent that. So, it's a question of what position you want the Russians to be in for the bulk of that whole duration of the war. And from the US perspective, the desired position is "no nukes needed".
My theory anyway.
Yeah, and throwing in economic vs political classifications doesn't simplify anything either.
Just looking at that thing makes my wrist hurt.
In what world did a bunch of sci fi geeks not realize it might be problematic to accept balloting based on email address identities? What next, make a 4chan post and use the comments as a way to count votes?
You can't do digital voting in an unsecured environment. This is like, internet 101. You cannot do genuine digital voting on the open internet. It will never be able to be fully trusted. This is really basic fundamentals here, to the point that it's basically malfeasance to even try. May as well jump off a skyscraper thinking you can fly, it's roughly at that level of sense.
Even the times the voting seemed to work, you should still regard it with heavy skepticism. There must be some kind of physical correlation to a verifiable human identity for a vote to be worth consideration, so that it remains possible for someone to check them in the future. Unless you just don't give a fuck.
I thought this understanding had already entered the mainstream, like, a decade ago. Or do we need to name more things after Hitler?