Keep in mind he is literally a child of the unprivileged commoners, so poking at his origins or genetics is not “punching up”. His mom is from a lower class family with drug and alcohol abuse problems, and she had him before meeting the prince.
Just poke at his personality or actions. There’s plenty there.
Yeah but they don’t have to also inhale his farts.
Guess the “Free Speech Absolutist” in charge of Twitter was too busy heiling hitler to step in huh.
This is what I have been hoping LLMs would provoke since the beginning.
Testing understanding via asking students to parrot textbooks with changed wording was always a shitty method, and one that de-incentivizes deep learning:
It allows for teachers that do not understand their field beyond a superficial level to teach, and to evaluate. What happens when a student given the test question “Give an intuitive description of an orbit in your own words” answers by describing orbital mechanics in a relative frame instead of a global frame, when the textbook only mentions global frame? They demonstrate understanding beyond the material which is excellent but all they do is risk being marked down by a teacher who can’t see the connection.
A student who only memorized the words and has the ability to rearrange them a bit, gets full marks no risk.
This comment is uninformed and I appreciate any corrections or education:
I thought Iran already had nukes, so the attack made no sense: Attacks on nuclear weapons facilities are prettly much “launch nukes” in any nuclear doctrine in any nuclear country.
But apparently they have just been working on them, and are allegedly a few weeks off from making their first?
It still seems like a suicidal move. Attacks on production typically slows or delays, but won’t delete or reverse anything. Iran hurrying up the programme and going on full nuke alert ready to fire if a bird in the sky twitches wrong seems like a very possible outcome.
Remember media bubbles are different in different countries.
The nordic media are pretty intensely hostile to Israel already and have been for years.
Harming a famous swede on a clear peaceful mission would go nuclear.
I wish we’d stop allowing them to be referred to as “rubber bullets”, which sounds sorta safe.
These things are metal slugs that break bones and rupture organs. They can crush your skull and kill you outright:
He will forget by tomorrow.
They are “fucking with” NATO, historically, but not attack. Lots of “im not touching you im not touching you” on the borders and north sea. Military submarines where they are not supposed to be. Sudden declarations of artillery practice in international waters causing ship travel to reroute, then not actually doing practice…
Nuclear is less expensive and more scalable than solar, wind, hydro.
It does not boil the planet like fossil fuels.
Yes it takes time and money to set up, but that’s a short term cost.
This is assumed to be widely known, so critical questions that don’t take that into account are assumed to be either in bad faith or laziness.
“Thorny problem of waste disposal” is such a shitty phrase. The alternatives of coal and oil have more damaging waste disposed straight out into the atmosphere. We just don’t demand shit from those industries, while nuclear needs to be beyond perfect to be an alternative.
This is a civilian airport.
The fuck is a terror strike “pro-Palestine news!” ???
That’s a civilian airport and a terror attack. Claiming this is “pro” anything is not ok.
“Why is the AfD classified as extremist?”
First section in the linked article.
The case studies, historical events, and intellectual movements discussed in the book all receive superficial treatment, and in general the content does not work in service of the argumentation.
That’s how academics say “this book is racist horseshit”
Why would anyone give a shit about negotiating with a government that change course 180 degrees on a whim, and recently launched a surprise fucking drone strike on Iran even while they were cooperating militarily?
Any negotiated promise or commitment from the US would be literally worthless. They’d just forget in a week anyway.
Exactly.
It was an opportunity to pick who would be in power for them to fight for improvement.
If they effectively meant what they claim, they’d push with heart and soul to get the lesser evil in poer and then immediately fight them tooth and nail for positive change.
“We need to fight for change. I prefer my opponent to devolve into oppressive fascism first, please.”
The effect will be stability, but not in a good way. Like a pile of bricks being more stable than a wall because they can’t fall over.
US troops pacify enough that no government can grow there, and no foreign nations (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc) can sponsor a puppet government.
Things that will be cracked down on: Any strong organization not endorsed and in leash of US military.
Things that will not be: Systemic problems like corruption, smuggling, organized crime, etc. And with no other organizing force allowed, nobody will be in power to handle those.
The result will be less violence and war, but a region that’s not sustainable or functioning. It’ll be less able to stand on its own after the US gets bored with it than it is now.
The vanity of not choosing a lesser evil.
All the clutched straws of misapplied “false dichotomy”, “showing the democrats that they must change”, etc are just intellectual dishonesty. It’s actively and knowingly choosing a greater evil by not flipping the lever in a real life trolley problem.
Fluff news, then