site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 318378 results for

domain:streamable.com

result in massive international penalties for countries A and or B?

yes

also, it would be hard to find country B with nukes willing to sell them one way or another

lets say that Slovenia decided to buy nukes from Pakistan: then people in Pakistan can sell them out (at no risk to themselves) or go into insanely risky operation

if things leak before Slovenia gets nukes then you have decent option of sudden coup one way or another

also, even if Slovenia buys nukes it is not very valuable by itself - you also need delivery methods

also, what Pakistan would need to get (or Pakistani officials) to make it worth it?

basically any part may blow up in face of all involved

I don't think that's what originalism is. Every time I've seen people argue, claiming originalist bona fides, they bring up the surrounding context. The debates, the letters, the journals, and any other written record they can find from the founding fathers. They aren't considering the words on the page in a vacuum. If anything, that's what the "living document" people do. They ignore all the context around around the founding documents, squint, abuse semantics, and decide the words on the page mean whatever they want them to mean.

Thanks! That kind of fact-checking is valuable to reveal manipulation by SS-men.

I did find I was constantly tweaking my gambits, most on account of status effects. Another difference I remember was that with the OG license board, I could give all my characters some low level spells, like Protect or Shell, so the whole party would work together to keep those protection spells up. In Zodiac Age, you tell your single white mage in the part to keep everyone protected, it's virtually all they do it takes so long to cast 3 times in a row, and then it's nearly worn off! Meanwhile they aren't healing or curing status effects.

This was what really put me off the game back when I played the original. IIRC, I had every character basically playing as a red mage, never bothered with skills, and just unlocked the strongest weapons available whenever I found new ones.

A lot of knowledge is tacit, stuff which you do not learn from books.

If it's not in the code it won't be done. No inspector would check it, and no mechanism for different electricians to agree it should be done.

Second claims that cost is 10% to 30% of the value of the deal

First claims that "trade in Africa 50% more expensive than the global average" so global standard would be 6% to 20% of value.

But second claims that just homegrown payments systems would reduce costs to 1% value of the deal.

Still seems to be not consistent.

The ideal temperature for human comfort is around 20 °C (68 °F), which is why people set their thermostats around there. Anyone setting his thermostat to anything meaningfully distant from ~20 °C is doing it to save money.

According to my copy of ACCA Manual J (Abridged Edition), which is used by professionals to design HVAC systems: The target values used in design are 70 °F (21 °C) at 30 percent humidity for heating in winter, and 75 °F (24 °C) at 50 percent humidity for cooling in summer. The heating target actually is at the very edge of the "envelope of comfort" (presumably for energy savings), while the cooling target is right in the middle of the envelope, so only the cooling target should be considered the ideal temperature.

How easy is it to smuggle a nuke, and how long would it remain viable once smuggled?

My impression of nuclear prevention and watchfulness is that it takes a lot of science and infrastructure to refine uranium into a usable state for weapons, and you can't really build all of that stuff without a lot of commotion that foreign powers will notice.

But lots of nations already have all of that infrastructure, and the country wanting nukes only needs the end product. If country A without nukes allied with country B with nukes, would country B be able to use their own infrastructure to do most of the work and then secretly pass them enough weapons grade uranium and/or assembled nuclear warheads to stick into missiles that everyone else thinks are non-nuclear? And then several years later when it became relevant they announce "Tada! We have nukes!"

Or would this be immediately caught while happening and result in massive international penalties for countries A and or B?

The ideal temperature for human comfort is around 20C, which is why people set their thermostats around there. Anyone setting their thermostats to anything meaningfully distant from ~20C is doing it to save money. If you're outdoors, you maybe want a bit more if it's windy, or a bit less if it's sunny or you're doing a lot of physical activity, but you want the sum of all effects to average you back so your individual subjective feeling is around 20C.

Whatever combination of sunny/cloudy/rainy gets you closer to 20C is the ideal weather for your region.

I would have said "leafs" or "canucks" but both of those are actual NHL teams (Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadians respectively).

Canucks are Vancouver, Montreal are the CanadiEns

It's not hard to imagine a world in which Israel's air campaign culminates eventually as they run low on munitions and a deal of some flavor is worked out.

I do not know why we wouldn't continue funding Israel to keep doing decapitation strikes on Iran leadership and maintain air superiority. This is incredible edge at incredible ROI.

Requires no ground invasion and civilian deaths are minimized. I would contribute to this GoFundMe.

Eventually, either Iran ruling committee #133 decides to surrender or the central government looks like a pathetic clown show and the nation disintegrates.

I wonder what kind of pitch deck the Kurds are circulating right now.

It would probably be prudent to offer the full context here:

Not at issue is whether there will be kosher food in the Dunster dining hall, since I have said from the beginning that I welcome anything that meets the food wishes of students.

Nor at issue is whether there will be a toaster oven for kosher use only, since House Master Liem offered to pay for one out of his private funds.

The only issue is whether Harvard money will be spent for something whose use is restricted on sectarian grounds. I oppose such an expenditure because it violates secular principles, which in my opinion are part of the foundation of a democratic society.

Cooking utensils, according to kosher law, must be used only for kosher food. Harvard funds all sorts of religious facilities, but none of the others is restricted in use on sectarian grounds. Thus Memorial Church hosts a variety of religious and non-religious activities, which do not render it unfit for Christian (or other) worship, and no one is compelled to engage in any form of religious observance in order to use it.

...

Finally, at least one Crimson headline writer and one cartoonist have suggested that I am anti-Semitic. I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity and whoever calls me an anti-Semite will face a libel suit. Noel Ignatiev Non-resident Tutor, Dunster House

So, he's objecting to what he sees as specific Jewish privilege and is specifically answers the claim that this action would make him an anti-Semite. Seems like context that one would want to include and not just drop this one individual sentence here, whatever one things about Ignatiev's other statements.

Tin canned, freeze dried, etc.

How does this follow? Ukraine could do great damage to Russia if it used one nuke or a handful, sure, but Russia could use a fraction of its nuclear arsenal to turn Ukraine into an uninhabitable wasteland. Besides, there is already a level of escalation available to Ukraine that is of the nuke nature without being of the same degree, which is that they could use their ample supply of mid/long-range drones to strike civilian centers with incendiary charges. Why do you figure they do not do that, by the same reasoning, whatever it is?

Why can't you store food? Let’s do some back of the envelope math: CAP budget is 55B/year, with germany shouldering 25%, that’s 13B, that’s €0.45 per german per day in subsidies.

Because it goes bad?

This guy is probably just crazy, Walz might not be a great guy but a governor of a small state in flyover having a secret stable of US-military trained assassins doesn’t sound real.

Ukraine is already striking Russia. I don’t think that, if they had a nuke, they wouldn’t launch it.

I mean, for most things medical, electrical, or legal, there’s no good reason for anyone without the training to attempt to DIY. For food and food additive advice, I’d look for someone who’s a Registered Dietitian, because they have trained in the material and would know the information you need.

I’m not sure how nukes stop internal security problems from getting you butchered. Gaddafi didn’t fall to a ground invasion.

I remember nothing but breathless exhortations about him definitely having WMDs. And that there was evidence because of yellow cake refinement. I don't even really know what that is. But then we invaded Iraq and there was a two or three year search for WMDs that then turned out to be totally fruitless. The only thing approaching WMDs were the defunct chemical weapons stockpiles we gave to them to fight Iran.

Agreed on "breathless exhortations", but ... there is a but. Certainly many people walked away thinking the purpose of Iraq war to get rid of Saddam's nukes but I can't really find evidence anyone ever said they had nukes. Overuse of word "WMD" is another move that was both brilliant yet frustrating: conflated anything from mustard gas to nerve agents and nuclear weapons.

Like, here's the press release of February 5 2003 briefing to UNSC by Colin Powell. Powell made many claims: that Iraq was hiding stuff from the inspectors and that Iraq had had a biological and chemical weapons programs in 1990s (true), that Saddam had mobile laboratories (not), that Saddam "remained determined to acquire nuclear weapons" and was trying to acquire various machines such as high-specification aluminum tubes and magnets and machines (not really). Afterwards, it became evident the Saddam's nuclear program was vaporware and had been after the 1990s, but notice how elusive the original claims were here: "Those illicit procurement efforts showed that Saddam Hussein was very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons programme -– the ability to produce fissile material." Tubes, magnets, "Saddam Hussein very focused on", "key missing piece". Sounds very scary indeed, but it was not a claim that Saddam had yet nukes.

There was a set of statements that Saddam was procuring uranium material ("yellow cake") from Africa (GWBs State of the Union 2003 and many statements by Dick Cheney). Again, it was nearly all claims about obtaining uranium, not having weapons. While searching for sources for all this, apparently there's bunch of anti-war websites who love to quote how Dick Cheney said "And we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons" on Meet the Press aired March 16, 2003. Looking at the transcript that particular phrase looks like bit of word salad to me. He did say (twice!) "reconstituting his nuclear programs", which makes more grammatical sense, probably the phrase he was supposed to repeat. If Cheney was making a claim Saddam had nukes, he was being surprisingly circumspect about it. Its all "what could happen" "if they had a nuclear weapon", "he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapon", "it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons". (Later on, the US troops found yellow cake, only it was material IAEA knew of.)

To me, the 'historiography' of media reporting looks like gaslighting twice over. First round in 2003, with a frenzy of statements by admin trying to make Saddam's alleged WMD program appear maximally bad while alluding more than what they exactly said, knowing they were warmongering on flimsy ground and hypotheticals but tiptoeing close to some imagined line they thought was supported by "evidence". Too bad that all the evidence and intelligence was blatantly false or fabricated. Second round of mischaracterization happened after the war, when everyone was angry or disillusioned or both, with anti-war side painting a picture where GWB and Cheney and Powell had said all the maximal claims of Iraqi nukes everybody thought they had heard.

I don’t think that the meaning is self evidently the same as originalism. There are other ways to derive intent that don’t come directly from the written text of the constitution or case law or any other written all.

The first amendment says “Congress will make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The plain meaning is “no state church, and congress (NB: only one branch of government is mentioned in the text). So what does religion mean, in this context? What does free exercise mean in this context? What happens if Trump issues an executive order enjoining the entire country to the Orthodox Church in America? The text actually doesn’t say anything about executive orders. So you’d have to look to other things: what kinds of things were the people debating the bill saying about the bill, what were they trying to prevent from happening? What did they say when trying to sell the Bill of Rights to the People? What did early case law say about things like various states having official churches? What did they think religion means? These things are not plain reading of the meaning of the text. (Which, going only by the text, only prevents Congress from passing a law to make a National Religion or to forbid a religion from being practiced. That’s what the meaning of the words on the paper say.”

It should also be noted that Noel Ignatiev regarded anti-semitism as a "Crime against humanity." So according to Harvard professor Ignatiev there's a moral impetus to abolish the white race by any means necessary, but anti-semitism is a Crime against Humanity. The surge of anti-semitism is caused by the Noticing of this bitterly hostile social consensus. The actions of Israel are going a long way in revealing this social consensus for what it is.

“It’s a pity they can’t both lose”

—Henry Kissinger (well known far-right Jew, referring to a war between Muslim states)

These are not really comparable, method or cohort wise. Postal survey is probably biased towards bored old people..

Also it's strongly suggestive that on the link paper claims length of exposure to finasteride was correlated with the ED..

North Korea was a strategically located part of the communist bloc, which made them pretty tight with the Soviet Union and China. So they weren’t really in too much danger until the beginning of the 90s, and only in critical danger after 9/11. The Kims realized this and made a successful attempt at nuclear breakout.