Oh I'm not saying it does, the person above seemed to be suggesting that we should focus on figuring out the residency conditions that lead to the best patient outcomes, rather than improve the conditions for residents, which suggests they believe worse conditions for residents may be better for patients.
Just to point out the obvious, people doing 80 hrs/week for 2 years (lower end of residency term I believe) are going to have twice as much 'experience' as people doing 40hrs/week for 2 years.
I suspect most of us here know more hours worked doesn't directly correlate with more retention of information and best practices, but that's the thinking.
I'm arguing that even if 80hrs/week residencies was the optimal amount of pressure to turn our fledgling residents into battle-hardened physicians, if you can get 99% of the effect with 40hrs/week, maybe do that instead. And again, I'm not even suggesting this is actually the case.
The idea is that the stress and sleep deprivation are not sources of permanent impairment (even though they are), but rather a filter that selects the strongest candidates.
I don't disagree. But then for most of the 7,000 years of recorded history, GDP (and all the might that wealth ensures) was strictly a function of population. It wasn't until European colonialism came in the 1400s and industrialization in the 1700s that guns, resource extraction, and productivity gains changed the game.
But WW2 ended colonialism and 90s globalization spread industrialization worldwide, leaving us all in the slow roll of reverting to the mean now. At the end of which, the ancient civilizations of China and India, with nearly 3 billion people between them, will return to global dominance.
Let's not confuse domains: while economics isn't (necessarily) zero sum, geopolitics (in terms of influence or territory) is. US policy has nothing to do with these two facts.
Yes, when you look purely at geopolitics in terms of influence or territory, then that's zero sum.
But even when leaving economics out of the equation, which I find questionable, there are plenty of other aspects of politics that are not zero sum.
For instance: climate politics, pandemic control, arms race prevention.
I don't disagree, but they all unfortunately take a backseat to geopolitics. When it comes to the behavior of nations, the playground politics of bully and victim has more explanatory power than all the high talk of the UN.
But is that really true? I wasn't talking specifically about the UN, but if you take a look at nations across the globe, also historically, is the behaviour of nations primarily ruled by zero-sum bully and victim politics, or by nash equilibria, i.e. compromises where both parties benefit? I would say that nations that are at war or threatening each other with war are in the minority, globally.
Hmmm, you raise an interesting question. I'm no game theorist, but are bully/victim dynamics and Nash equilibria necessarily mutually exclusive? What I'm getting at is: the threat of force determines every other player's optimal strategy, with a fight always being the last resort for everyone involved.
Under such conditions, Adam giving the bully his lunch money, Bob his homework, and Charlie his lunch may be the Nash equilbrium—that is, until Dave (who knows kung fu) moves to the neighborhood.
First, I've been hearing it all my life. More often after 2014, and very often since 2022. In 2022, it was "russia has days left of reserves".
Second, nationalism was always (since 1300s?) strong in there. It always united russians against the enemy even if they hated the goverment. That's why every incrusion attempt always failed.
Sure. We don't need incursions. They can stay and be nationalistic all they want.
We need to keep applying pressure until something breaks. There's a constant refrain of "Sanctions don't work. Please stop the sanctions." from the Kremlin.
> Sanctions don't work. Please stop the sanctions.
Examples? All I can see is majority of russians living their life as usual. Sure some transplants in Moscow are sad that their consumarism routine got distracted, but that is it.
As for money frozen in EU, IIRC most of it aren't realted to the goverment and just happened to be in trasit when sanctions started.
Every oligarch knows that Putin is the hand that feeds and biting it at best gets you in prison at worst an express descend to the ground.
In general I don't think sanctions work. They're clearly not working against Russia. EU countries still use tons of Russian gas, they just pay 5X more than they used to because now they have to stick their fingers in the ears and cover their eyes and buy the gas re-routed through India or Azerbaijan at a premium while they pretend they are no longer buying Russian gas. It is quite silly.
And a naval engagement to the Czech Foreign Legion :)
Russia has historically been very good at killing off invading armies through attrition, but that's not necessarily a strength when they're the invading army in similarly inhospitable conditions
Russia didn't lose to Afghanistan, rather Russia, Ukraine and Belarus dismantled the Soviet era occupation force. In fact the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan lasted 3 more years on its own - unlike the US installed government which collapsed before US troops left.
Easy to defend mega land with harsh winters (but not so harsh anymore as they were during those failed campaigns), especially when both defeated invading armies severely underestimated... cold weather. Nobody is really invading russia here, whole world just wants to be left alone from them, including all former soviet republics (funnily this includes Belarus too).
That's not saying anything about their offensive capabilities, which as whole world sees are a fraction of what was thought about them. They really are supremely ineffective, corrupt and lazy in numbers and levels that cripple whole war for them. They can't produce enough new armed vehicles and their stockpiles from cold war are running very thin as per independent satellite analyses, they use stolen motorbikes, donkeys and golf karts for troopers now (with corresponding death rate). Their nuclear weapons are just a guarantee they won't be attacked on Moscow conventionally or nuclear in any way, nothing more. As we see all other 'doctrines' and 'red lines' fell apart with long lasting incursion in Kursk so that was just an empty bullshit.
They know all this, their country is falling into inflation spiral which can easily end up with people's revolt and I believe puttin' realizes how fragile his relatively soft power grip on russia is. Plus he has positioned himself as an arbiter between various power clans within his hierarchy, not as a single supreme single ruler whom everybody fears for life like in North Korea for example. He desperately needs to finish this war within a year or two since he is an extremely paranoid person. But he has some sort of effective reach or control over orange man and we saw what we saw, who knows why.
Myth. Russia had superior tanks and manpower. German high command had no idea of the depth of Russias armament industry or the number of troops (see eg the Hitler/Mannheim conversation).
Yes the winters did help, but they were still outnumbered, and outproduced.
My point is that the Russian people have a capacity for self-sacrifice that shouldn't be underestimated, especially when their (perceived) sovereignty is threatened.
During WW2, for example, the Soviets lost a total of 20-27 million dead. Only China, a country almost three times as populous, came close at 15-20 million.
My theory is Russia can continue to produce long range weapons and drones in factories near the Urals or even beyond in Siberia, far out of reach of anything the Ukrainians can get their hands on, and just outproduce the Ukrainians as long as it takes.
They're certainly trying. Had you asked me before the full scale invasion, I would have answered differently. But Ukraine still stands, and it's looking more and more like a Finland-like situation. After all the repatrionization propaganda that doesn't look good for Putin. And the Russian economy absolutely suffers from this, we just don't know how much.
The Soviet Union lost 20m+ dead because they faced an existential threat from an enemy that intentionally massacred many millions of people who lived there (including people who weren't particularly enamoured with the idea of a Soviet Union or Stalin as leader)
The situation isn't quite that bad in either Russia or Ukraine which was also one of the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. But it's certainly closer in Ukraine, even if most Russians hold an irrational level of enthusiasm for the war
I'm with you. And we seem to be in the minority here. Setting Ukraine aside for the moment, what have the many US military conflicts—they were not "wars" because the last one Congress declared was during WW2—since WW2 achieved?
Excluding proxy wars for simplicity's sake and only counting those where we had boots on the ground, from our engagements in Korea to Afghanistan, how has the world become a better place?
Besides (arguably) Korea, it seems our blood and treasure could've been better spent.
reply