

I mean, this guy must live in an insane bubble if he doesn’t understand that this will help Mamdami more than if he had endorsed them. I am sure NYC voters will just rally around a guy who, through funding, owns its allegiance to billionaires.


I mean, this guy must live in an insane bubble if he doesn’t understand that this will help Mamdami more than if he had endorsed them. I am sure NYC voters will just rally around a guy who, through funding, owns its allegiance to billionaires.
I don’t want to talk ethics, but as a rule of thumb, winning a war is easier if you take out strategic targets than if you target civilians. Targeting civilians is what you do if your weapons aren’t precise enough to target tanks/planes etc.


I have to say this I don’t buy this constant nuclear threat. Iran supposedly started their nuclear program 30 years ago. Either they have a bomb or they will never get it. It doesn’t take that long to replicate what other countries did in a few years.


You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.


I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.


deleted by creator


This. I mean the primary responsibility of schools is to teach and certify academic achievement. They should never withhold certification on non-academic grounds.


Yes indeed. You should ask your parents about the aunts and uncles you would have had if only smartphones had been invented 2 decades earlier. I am sure they will have tons of stories to tell /s.


Lol… yes my classmates died en masse.


If that happened I guess it was His will /s.


GNI still gives a slightly better measure of income which is what OP was asking for. For instance if an American gets dividend income from a foreign company that’s part of GNI but not GDP, and vice versa if a US company pays dividends to a foreign shareholder. But yeah in practice all of this will be negligible.


Real GDP is adjusted for inflation. That’s what the term Real means. Nominal GDP is not adjusted. I always think that reporting should primarily focus on real GNI per capita, which is slightly more informative than real GDP, but in practice I think the differences won’t be shocking.


There is a variable called Gross National Income (GNI) corrected for inflation which is likely the variable Wolfers refers to. You can report it, but it will not be very different from GDP corrected for inflation which the media writes about all the time. Essentially production =income except for some small nuances.


I mean, yes, but by the same token beer is far less lethal than whiskey. Our response to that is to sell beer in pints and whiskey in smaller glasses. Just wondering why such an approach would be impossible for drugs.


Capitalism was supposed to be our economic system, not our political system.


Very nice explanation and only nitpicking, but saying that Thorium is much much safer than uranium implies that uranium nuclear plants are unsafe. In reality uranium nuclear power has one of the best safety records in energy production.


Tariffs are at 245 percent. I doubt they can do much in terms of adding their own surcharges.


No that’s not the case. The US actually was a big fan of the pre-Khomeiny government in Iran. Of course Trump did make things worse by tearing up the Iran-nuclear deal.


I mean fck Israel for their genocide, but also fck Iran. Don’t forget that they sponsor terrorist groups around the world including the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, which destabilise three countries in the Middle East. They send drones to Russia that have killed thousands of Ukrainians. They have a brutal regime that’s one of the worst for women’s rights. This is a fight between two complete dicks.
The solution to chess is almost certainly a draw, since this is what all top engine chess converges to. Otherwise you are completely correct: chess is unsolved and will likely never be solved.