Slightly off-topic: Is Evans still the standard introduction to "modern" PDE techniques like weak solutions/Sobolev/etc or did something better come out?
I remember that I found it not so well written whilst in undergrad, but everyone I know used it.
>When Ukraine assassinates a Russian general with a car bomb, is that "terrorism" or is that just a targeted killing of a military leader during a war?
That depends on when the car detonates. If the car detonates when he and his guard enter it at 6 am near the defense ministry sure. If the car detonates when it is parked in the middle of Moscow at noon and 100 people are around then by pre-2022 standards it would be terrorism.
I think instead of these fake whataboutisms we should just admit that there is no universal bar and if it's "our team" then we are willing to change the standard.
In this case, we know that when Israel set off these pagers some innocent bystanders got hurt. No need to "whatabout".
No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.
>No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine.
"Opportunity to kill in base" is completely vague and varies depending on the military tribunal that will try you. Israel has, AFAIK, never said that there was no other way to kill those people.
>At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people.
>Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.
This line of thinking justifies bombing (with massive collateral damage) any partisan /resistance movement that is constantly on the move. Which I guess makes sense since that is what Israel did a lot in Gaza.
The posted article states 2800 people were injured in the first attack and 600 in the second. These numbers sound a bit questionable given only tens of people were killed. However, 3400 injured is massive collateral damage if true.
>I'm in a position where I don't have enough years of experience to comfortably choose where I work. I'm basically forced to join a company as a junior and "climb the ladder". I still don't know why I would care to.
To earn more?
>In 5 years I will still earn the same and my boss will be sitting comfortably in his (already bought) yacht.
If you have no earnings progression in 5 years as someone who graduated in 2024 you must be doing something VERY wrong, no matter the field.
>The only thing about this constant discussion about the metas and what not is that clearly everyone knows this, so who is this supposed to be for?
LPs. Your LPs want to hear about how you are using their capital for A.I. If A.I fails 2 years down the line you will get to hide out in the crowd. Contrarianism in an institutional setting is actually very hard to do.
>Multiple conditions are aligning for a broad re-alignment of medical care delivery in the US, resulting in the development of a two-tiered delivery model: high-quality, efficient, innovating cash-pay for those who can pay and low-quality, wait-rationed care delivery for those who can't.
This is already the case in quite a few of European countries. I can't comment on how bad the 2nd tier will be in the US, probably worse.
Well, yes, many of them appear to be. Mostly not as rich as the USA, of course, though, but if wealth was all that mattered then Monaco would be the greatest country on hte planet. And I should remind you also that not all countries in Europe have parliamentary systems anyway. France and Russia don't, for example, and there are also parliamentary democracies outside of Europe, like Canada and Australia.
Well my original claim was regarding parliamentary democracy, and France is not a parliamentary democracy, so I shan't go to any great lengths defending them over something I know nothing about. But yes, these countries are not perfect anyway and I did not suggest otherwise. Only that many of them seem to be fundamentally more stable and successful than the USA. And tbh, what other country has done well with a presidential system besides South Korea?
Anyway we are witnessing the sudden collapse of the American Empire and it is fascinating and tragic to watch. You guys, you really have fucked it all up! A country not more than 30 years from the absolute peak of its global power, decided to abandon all claims to global power and influence by voting for Trump a second time. Incredible, just, incredible. Americans, everybody!
The only one that seems to have failed in the same way as the US system has failed is Hungary (Turkey had a broadly similar systemic failure, but isn't a parliamentary republic). Now, obviously, a parliamentary democracy isn't a _guarantee_ that you won't fall into autocracy/kleptocracy (notably, the Weimar Republic was one, albeit a poorly designed one), but they do seem more resistant to it than presidential republics, where it seems to almost happen more often than not.
>Whatever you say about this policy, it is the opposite of the high-tariff, free trade-skeptical ethos that one associates with Trump’s economic agenda. It is even, dare I say, almost globalist.
>There’s a big question that I still have around why the administration has defaulted to the “free trade for AI; protectionism for everyone else” principle
I don't understand the confusion. Trump is literally just trying to implement a completely vanilla mercantilist system. His thinking is straight from Mun's "England's Treasure by Foreign Trade".
>I think it's a very good lesson: Investment isn't easy,
I think the opposite actually, for sovereign wealth funds its not that hard at all. Kuwait and Abu Dhabi are doing perfectly well, they just don't invest based on crazy ideas from the king.
Honestly, now that you have all-white snus, basically all of the issues of cigarettes are gone (and they are so fking expensive in Europe) and you get all of the benefits of nicotine. I don't need to go outside the office, just sit at my desk and continue working. Now that the market is developed you can vary nicotine dosage at will.
Maybe someone else here heard something different, but my dentist told me that there don't seem to be any dental issues associated with oral pouches, at least so far ?
Find a new dentist. Nicotine pouches are incredibly bad for oral health. Huge risk of oral cancer. And it’ll make your gums recline, exposing your nerves (this hurts). Also nicotine itself is quite bad for you to begin with (cardiovascular health, anxiety, etc).
Sure snus is better than smoking, but that’s just because most things are better than smoking.
Would you happen to have a source? I mentioned this specifically, he said that he is only aware of gums reclining for very heavy users (5+ pouches a day) and that from the other patients he has 1-2 pouches don't seem to have any noticeable effect.
I remember that I found it not so well written whilst in undergrad, but everyone I know used it.
reply