I'm broadly in favor of RFCs but they need to be dictated from top-down. That's easier said than done.
Most RFC committee debates ime devolve into firing squads in which the presenter needs to answer every question with pin-point accuracy and perfect context from the asker. Otherwise, they look unprepared and the RFC is negated.
This is allowed to happen because everybody is a theoretical co-equal in the process. Thus, everybody wants to have their say. You'd hope people would read ahead of time but there's always somebody who doesn't yet feels entitled to ask pre-emptive questions. It makes for very combative discussions.
The exception is when a double-skip manager stops that from happening and lets the presenter "make their case" and walk through the whole RFC.
It reminds me of the math "puzzles" on Twitter which go:
1 shoe + 1 shoe = 2
2 shoes + 2 shoes = 4
3 shoes + 2 shoes = ???
And the answer isn't 5 because a) we're not counting shoes and b) the shoe laces were different colors. There's nothing clever, it just teaches you to be hyper cynical and question every little detail which isn't relevant to either Math or the real world.
I have a little monograph written many decades ago on Dimensional Analysis. Since reading it, not quite so many decades ago, I simply dismiss puzzles of this sort because the two sides of the equations are dimensionally incongruent. This means that I have to try to guess the state of mind of the questioner rather than solve a logic problem.
It's a handy stance because I'm no good at either solving logic problems or getting inside other people's heads!
Another on that really irritates me is the kind that presents a series of integers and asks which integer comes next. Any integer will do, you just have to fit the appropriate polynomial.
> Another on that really irritates me is the kind that presents a series of integers and asks which integer comes next. Any integer will do, you just have to fit the appropriate polynomial.
But surely someone with a strong imagination could come up with a pattern to fit any number as the next in the sequence. I doubt most elementary educators even grasp the issue.
I expect people in different branches of statistics or physics would potentially come up with different answers based on what sorts of series appear in their realm of expertise.
People really hate coding interviews but they now exist as a "stupid test."
Academia has a problem with possibly fraudulent papers and grade inflation. It is inevitable that companies won't trust the papers and grades/degrees like they did in the past.
I trust a Harvard undergrad more than I trust a second or third tier grad student. It's so easy to shit out mediocre work and build accolades without actually being able to do anything these days.
Abandoning Ukraine risks emboldening Russia to continue their conquest of Eastern Europe - which, ultimately, increases the risk of nuclear war anyway, only with a stronger Russia with even more leverage. Being nuclear armed should not give a country license to seize any territory they wish.
You think letting Russia harass and invade their former vazal states is without risk? They've occupied eastern Europe until 1989. With the invasion of Crimea in 2014 they've basically only not harassed and not occupied eastern European countries for only 25 years. The only thing which provokes Russia is weakness.
It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum.
It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945.
It's for people: The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.
> It's for security: It's less risky now to fight Russia then later, after they've conquered more people and territory, and have political momentum.
This is a fair and logical point.
> It's for security again: If Russia wins, it greatly damages the international order which has prevented wide-scale war for generations. Remember the world before 1945.
That very international order hinges on the US being the sole dominator of the entire world. Sooner or later that sort of international order has to crack.
> The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.
Pax Americana is paid for (in blood, natural resources, political sovereignty and the fate of every single future generation) by hundreds of millions of people, though outside of the "western, civilized" world. You still consider it some righteous cause? Sounds kind of selfish.
>> The lives, freedom, rights, and prosperity of tens of millions of people are at stake.
> Pax Americana is paid for (in blood, natural resources, political sovereignty and the fate of every single future generation) by hundreds of millions of people ...
I didn't say anything about righteousness, but about the human beings directly affected by Russia's invasion.
Typically this would require something to be gained from engaging in nuclear war. If you bring out the nukes then you are pretty much asking to be utterly destroyed. Sure you may get some of your enemies in the meantime, but you won't survive to see them dead. Using nukes in Ukraine is just a quick way to turn every other country in the world against you.
I think it is far more likely that Russia is waiting for a change of leadership in America that is friendly to their cause. In the meantime they are digging fortifications and stocking up for a future offensive to retake Kursk and expand their holdings in Ukraine when they lose access to American munitions.
I think it reduces the risk of a nuclear war. The thing to understand about Russia is that all their "red lines" are empty talk, and what they really respect is force. Ukraine appeared weak to Putin, and that's why he invaded. Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet, or having enough strength to make an invasion seem obviously bad idea.
IMO the best way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons. Then they would have nowhere to invade without risking their own destruction.
>Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet
Finland has been peacefully coexisting with USSR and Russia for almost 80 years after the WW2.
>would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons
Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example. Think of every country the US ever invaded or bombed having nukes and the means to deliver them to the US.
Yes it is. And even then, looking at what Putin is doing to Ukraine, they decided to promptly join NATO and seek further direct military cooperation with the US. They are currently building facilities to pre-position American equipment in Finland in addition to their own large and excellent army. Finland indeed represents a blueprint for peaceful coexistence.
The CIA and the Department of State did worse already all around the globe. US can't claim the moral high ground on this. So yeah, maybe think about the consequences of escalation.
I think that Russia (Putin) thought that ukraine would collapse within days and it would be a walkover.
But it wasn’t and Zelensky bound his people together to resist the Russian army. The Russian army showed its capabilities and more surprisingly it’s huge limitations.
The oligarchy in Russia may well determine that getting rid of Putin might be less risky than letting him escalate the situation, especially if he starts talking about using even battlefield nukes.
The US's national security interests in supporting Ukraine are pretty blindingly obvious. Turning isolationist and emboldening Russia helps no-one but Russia.
With fairness to these "emotional lunatics", their assumption that Russia would be too afraid to attack NATO territories has thus far been proven right.
As long as we are able to quibble about on the internets, ye, we haven't come to lobbing those around yet. Correct. Always a correct argument if it makes ot to the servers. At this point it hasn't happened...
Unfortunately for Russia, the "Final Warning" strategy has since been translated into English and is therefore ineffective against modern NATO regiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning
America doesn't negotiate with terrorism, only strategic arms reduction. Russia cannot desire for nuclear war because it cannot be used as a bartering tool; ICBMs are merely an expensive pen for signing their own death warrant.
That's exactly it. Up until now, it was widely believed that this would risk nuclear war, which is why it wasn't allowed.
But now the US is about to have a President who is far, far more favorable to Putin. Would Putin blow up the US just before it's going to cease support for Ukraine entirely?
This is a calculated risk. Everything about this war has been a calculated risk (and indeed, any war). There is a strong argument to be made that nuclear war was never really going to happen, and that we should have allowed Ukraine to attack Russia more directly all along. The present administration rejected that, but now that calculation has changed.
Better to be dead then to be a slave in russia- which almost always means you will become a slave dragged against your will to the trenches to die in another enslavement campaign. So the choice boils down russia or not russia - and beeing dead either way.
The same people who were very wrong about the election seem to believe everything the same media says about Russia. Very strong correlation, very questionable propaganda
I don’t know what media you consumed, but the media I read indicated the race could go either way, and that a 300+ EV tally for either candidate was possible. It’s literally impossible to have been “wrong”.
Bit of “media literacy” for you: The media you read does not exist to inform you. Trump’s lead would have had to have been overwhelming for published polls to indicate that he would win.
The media here in the UK told us that intel was saying Russia had gathered troops and equipment near the border of Ukraine, preparing for an invasion. Putin said they were lying.
Then Putin invaded Ukraine, but called it a special military operation.
Now our news tries to keep us updated about which territory is controlled by Russia or Ukraine, what the rough estimated casualties are, and so on.
Which part do you think they're misinforming us about?
No. The default API quota is not large enough to upload videos. You would have to contact Google, explain your use case, and jump through several hoops to get the quota increased... which is a huge process.
Yeah. Uploading legit videos is non-trivial. And if you ever upload the same video twice (which you think you might do during testing, right?), it's a violation of their terms and they disable your access.
Anecdotal but I daydream a whole lot less now in my late 20s than I did in my teens. I wonder if part of that is because I could only _dream_ about doing certain things but now I have the money and ability to actually fulfill them.
Most RFC committee debates ime devolve into firing squads in which the presenter needs to answer every question with pin-point accuracy and perfect context from the asker. Otherwise, they look unprepared and the RFC is negated.
This is allowed to happen because everybody is a theoretical co-equal in the process. Thus, everybody wants to have their say. You'd hope people would read ahead of time but there's always somebody who doesn't yet feels entitled to ask pre-emptive questions. It makes for very combative discussions.
The exception is when a double-skip manager stops that from happening and lets the presenter "make their case" and walk through the whole RFC.