I mean it is an accurate description of it, so that might be a connection… but if you know the actual history of the term then please share
I don’t know why, but I never made the connection of this pose to the term “reared-up” (meaning ready to go/launch) until recently.
It should probably be expected that any country with the means will interfere in other countries elections. What bothered me most in 2016 was not so much what Russia did, but that we didn’t seem to have much of a response to it. And yes can we please support democracy and not authoritarians. I feel like the whole cold war was about capitalism vs communism when it should have been about democracy vs authoritarianism.
I don’t know much about investing, but i wonder if it would it be a good time to short those companies?
I wonder how much more energy it took to accomplish that compared to just shooting a rocket. Last I had heard railguns weren’t really feasible because of the absurd amount of energy they would require even with perfect efficiency.
For me, every time it suggests the correct base word, it gets the ending wrong, so I have to type out the whole word anyway. For example, if I want past tense it’ll suggest the present tense of the word.
I agree, but my understanding of it is that developing and announcing a long term plan for a company like that would cause the stock price to dip in the short term. Apparently that would be something shareholders could sue over, so even if some CEO wanted to do the right thing, they couldn’t. It comes down to the greed of people who don’t know and don’t care about the companies they’re invested in and their impacts on the world. They just want that money to come in every month.
I remember reading something about possibly using some kind of AI to take over when being jammed, so that it still hits the target.
If it’s blatant and on video then the lawyers will come to you and probably only ask for a percentage of the settlement.
If by blows up in their face, you mean they get arrested and later get a nice payout for wrongful arrest.
Yes and we shouldn’t let them bring us down to their level. First strike is never justified, but second strike in response could be. They don’t care about their people, so they probably want to goad others into nuking them. It would free them up to use theirs and claim it’s justified. Let’s not play into their hands.
I understand the posturing. Attacking the EU needs to be presented as a terrible idea, but when people start talking about using nukes loosely, then the other side might also consider them fair game. I guess, in my opinion, using first strike nukes is never justified, and if the EU or anyone does it then they’re no better than the aggressors. I would prefer we hold ourselves to higher standards instead of letting the bad actors bring us down to their level.
Maybe reasonable would be a better word.
Once someone uses a nuke, everyone will, and then everyone’s dead anyway.
Can we stop talking like using nukes could somehow be reasonable. The thought of using a first strike nuke should be considered beyond outrageous and any leader that even remotely considers it should be ran far away from any position of authority.
Edit: understandable - reasonable
For me there’s a certain amount of stress relief when I feel good contact with the ball. It can also be fun to try to be accurate the same as with other games like darts.
That’s a much taller order than you make it sound. It’d probably be easier to figure out fusion.
Fusion is the first step to a post scarcity world. All the new technology, products, agriculture methods, ect. that would be made possible with abundant, clean energy would completely transform the world. I doubt solar and wind could ever provide enough to make those advances.
Just think about the amount of fuel one plane uses, then go look at flightradar24.com
But… but it was the house that passed it… the house is currently run by republicans…