Agreed. Most of us really do not think about this shit as often as we should. I know I am guilty of assuming he when typing. I know because I make an effort not to be. And notice how often I need to correct text. Being older than many developers. I just grew up with the assumptions. So like many my age needed my attention drawn to the societal indoctrination.
People politely pointing it out is important. As is people volunteering to help correct older documentation.
Not sure about biological reasons. Its possible I spose but without more medical knowledge. In not sure how removing / changing organs as they grow developmentally effects the final outcome.
The argument has always been about the maturity of the candidate. And the idea that surgery is not practically reversible. Vs the mental harm of growing up in a body that dose not match your perceived gender.
But I have to wonder. As In the UK and I am sure the US hormone blockers are also being attacked with often questionable medical evidence as to the harm the may do when used on developing teenagers.
Given In the UK it is definatly not legal for anyone under the age of consent to have gender reasignment surgery. The current attacks seem to be aimed at making it impossible for that surgery to achive its best success once it is legal.
Not disagreeing. More devils advocate.
But are you basically saying if your home is attacked by another nation. One much larger and using draft to fill the ranks of attackers.
You are happy to allow your leader to fail to convince people to save your and your family/childrens lives.
Because at the end of it. That is why many folks support draft for a nation under attack.
I personally always think it is best as a last resort. Trained full time pros are genrally better at the job. But in an attack like this the amount of work needed to build and manage defences needs a huge labour force. Even modern tech warfare needs huge labour.
It is the idea that everyone needs the actions of these people to survive. That makes the vast majority express views like Ops original comment.
Pretty sure its in the deal as a trap. IE if any other data exists and he dosent destroy it. If it comes out his plea deal is invalid and he can be arrested and tried.
that mostly are non-practicing
Just to be clear. Practising was not a consideration to the NAZI ideals. And is in no way relevant to any of these events.
It dose. But its not like western xtian stopped influencing Africa some time in the past. Today American xtian orgs spend a fortune lobbying African nations and supporting extream right wing politics.
Lets face it the western world has difficulty removing money from politics. Even in the richest nation in the world. So having money from that nation interfere with the politics of less wealthy nations. Well lets face it there is a reason those are the nations right wing xtians try to push their ideals. It works.
Bollocks. The Ukraine has every hope of convincing Russia to leave its soil. If it has the support of other nations.
Having those nations allow the Ukraine to use weapons supplied in a way that forces Russia to actually spend resources defending its own inferstructure is the first step to lowering there ability to push everything they have into another nation.
The Ukraine has done a fantastic job of limiting the ability of Russia to over run its nation. While being limited in its ability to respond to the attacker. Forcing Russia to defend its ow borders will make a huge difference in the Ukraine ability to remove Russia fro mits own borders.
The direct numerics of moors law may not be definite.
But the principal it defines is. In the future computers will have much more power then they do now.
The reason modern GPUs use things like shaders etc is to allow them to archive massive manipulation of data in more efficient ways specific for the task desired.
Honestly this is why I mention time scale as the main thing that will make this possible. How modern gpus or other specialised processers do the task is less important then what the game code is asking the gpu to achieve.
The idea that at a unknown future date. The CPU GPUs or what ever future tech we have. will never be able to run fast enough to read current cpu or gpu instruction sets. And generate the effect defined using future techniques is not viable as an argument. The only questions are how long and is anyone going to have the motivation to reverse engineer the large but finite instruction sets used by secretive hardware corps today.
Every nation with currency sovereignty manipulates its currency.
Add to that. Citizens / voters blame politicians when a currency is low relative to others. While those same politicians claim responsibility for improvements.
Including US ones.
Not so sure about that. When you consider time spans.
Currently we can emulate the majority of early games consoles. So theoretically with time and Moors law any hardware will be emulate able in a few decades. With enough information.
The advantage of open source software. Is it can be used with the original binaries to reverse engineer the instruction set even if the original manufacturer wishes to hide it. So with will and effort even the most complex hardware will be able to be emulated on future much faster hardware.
Just petty tit for tat?
As opposed to a strategy that allows one nation to attack another knowing no effective response is possible you mean.
You choose to belittle the idea a nation should expect consequences when they try to seize another nation as petty tit for tat. Rather then a fair response.
Pretty much.
Edit. But if we are honest. Its not like western nations are going to stop buying vote to teach them the cost.
Unfortunately I don’t drink their products as I’m cheap. So can’t really help myself. But I would be amazed if a boycott of coca cola ever happened effectively.
Lets remember the fanta story.
Coke never left Germany even when the US finally joined the 2nd World War. The traded as fanta to avoid losing sales as an American brand. Once the German people felt they had reason to distrust the US.
Remember this company has a history of refusing to take sides.
True.
At least in poverty stricken nations. Oh and the US. But most of the rest of the world is a little different.
Sure in the early days of developments wealth helps in all nations. But it just tends to be a matter of time before new medical tech makes it to all the population in most 1st world nations.
The US is really pretty unique being one of the wealthiest nations but not having universal health care.
Again not covered by the EU agreement. Although a few EU members argue strongly for military unification. It was raised by many during brexit as a reason to leave the EU. So again unlikely to find full upport in the near future.
Currently the supply of arms and weapons is totally uncovered by EU trade agreements. NATO has some agreements. But non that cover this.
The thing people forget. International law dose not really exist beyond atual agreements nations are willing to commit to. Unfortunately as the world is a bloody long way from a utopia. Most nations are unwilling to agree to things that limit their own military actions. So nothing most other nations can do.
The closest we ever came is post WW2 where the Geneva convention and ICC was set up.
But as you can see. No nation is forced to abide by such rules. The US and Russia make i clear. Might makes right until some event leaves oa nation on the losing side of a battle with enough losses of resources to need help from other nations.
What the rest of the world thinks in wars is still pretty much unimportant to the events.
Lol.
Not part of an EU treaty. As lets face it if the EU had actual laws requiring a member nation to express approved political views. No nation would join.
As far as I know. That also applies to every other international treaty. They tend to limit actions not political opinions or speech.
I sorta agree.
Unfortunately modern science is slow to change ideas it has accepted in the past.
Neil Degrass Tyson did an interesting talk on the % of religion in science. Based in the US. And it basically indicated that the higher you get. The lower the odds you belie in religiose ideals.
But the levels were pretty high until the top. And still not 0 then.
I personally think (opinion not fact) this has left us with a community. That hesitates to challenge science on religion alone. IE we don’t see ideas thrown out when it is clear religion was involved in forming them. But instead only when clear evidence refutes them.
In my less the humble opinion. This leaves science with a few old wives nuns tails. That are still followed 400years after the 1689 acceptance of the scientific method.
Honestly Humanity has been pretty arrogant. Took 100s of years before we recognised birds use tools. Mainly because everytime it was seen. Some other excuse was seen for why the bird was sticking a stick into a tree. Science was so sure mankind was unique it was unwilling to see reality.
But honestly if you think that is bad. Do some research into why European explorers thought Europe represented the most advanced civilisation. African cities raised to the ground rather then face the idea they may have been their before us.
Sorry but those are assumtions based on the idea that the earth is unique.
It is now estimated thatt trillions of plannests wxist in the milky way alone. And abiur 2 million galaxies in the observable universe. We have absolutly no idea how common ir complex the start of life is. Ands assuming we are in anyway unique is not a scientific answer with the knowlesge we have. It is just an assumption.
If life is common and we habe no way of knowing that is not the case. Then we also have ansolutly no way of knowing how common intelegence is.
If intelegence is common. It is reasonable to assume with time radio is an easy invention. Cos lets face it. Based on our data the least intelegent civilization we know off. And the most intelegent discovered it withing 5k years of discovering what we call civalusation.
So again the idea that it is complex for a life to evolve and develop radio is nothing but an assumption. Admitadly a common one. But not one based on any evidence at all. Instead one that is common mainly due to arrogance of mankind assumeing earth must be unique. Just because we lack the tech to see any others.
As for the odds of us developing in time to hear others. Again. The number of plannets and variaty of distances throw that argumebt in the trash.
The estimated number is so great. That no matter when i. The last *estimated" 13.7 billion years we look at. Odd ate high that nillions of planetz exist at the correct distance for us to hear them at some point in the last 100 years of radio until we die as a race.
Again i want to repeat. I am not saying this is such. I have no idea.so to say it is woild be absurdly arragant. And i am far to pessimistic to think such will happen in my lifetime.
I am only sayiing when you remove the (scientifically unviable based on current knowledge) idea that the earth is unique for some reason. Abd add it to the evidence we have found of how many potential planets are in the universe.
Occams Razer is in no way valid to assume it cannot or is provably not alians.
Even more. That is why the vice president and a whole protocol of succession exists.
An old president is hardly like a feudal nation where a king dies without children.