yes, thus their point. It's probably not the sweetener or sugar in the coffee, it's that folks who add sweetener are also more likely to have a lifestyle that gives them type 2.
Or a separate effect where people whose doctors tell them they’re a diabetes risk tend to make a token switch to artificial sweeteners, but don’t take other, more effective steps.
that seems unlikely. I was looking into it the other day out of curiosity because of ADHD being . The effects of the same dosage on someone without ADHD is pretty much the same as with, it makes people feel more focussed.
For the same reasons the US entered WWI and WWII - the US economy has gained more than any other from a stable rule based world. The US paid to rebuild Europe after WWII and that act did nothing but pay dividends.
Thought of another way, if those minerals in the ground are useful resources for the US, it's more in the US benefit to pay now to stabilize the situation so they can later buy the minerals from a happy and productive population - as the amount of trade going the other way will probably be vastly greater.
Same is true of Russia, if it was possible to undo the fuckup there after the fall of the USSR. It could be a huge economy. It's not a zero sum game, if Ukraine and Russia have bigger free economies then everyone else gets bigger too.
That's the idea anyway, it's worked before. It maybe didn't work with China because we forgot the free part. But Ukraine was already heading in the right direction with democracy and fighting corruption - which is pretty much the reason for the war.
Historical fact: US population also didn't want to enter WW2 because they saw the war as Europe's problem, just like how I see this war mostly as Ukraine's problem. The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbor.
Your analogy means you would only like to enter war after Russia bombs somewhere else in Europe? When it becomes inevitable to go to war and we have to pay orders of magnitude more in economical terms, and an immeasurable price in lives?
Sorry, I didn't expect that an obvious historical fact (which I believe is common knowledge) was being used just as trivia.
It's the second time I interact with you today, it's the second time you become extremely defensive and reactionary. Do you behave like that in real life? Rather exhausting.
On that note, I would invite you to read my reply to you earlier today [0], might help to put down the armor a little, and perhaps think about engaging with more curiosity and less aggressiveness out of the bat, not everyone is out to get you.
I've lived in Denmark. You get a digital mailbox when you move there which is used by every utility and public service to contact you. There was very little paper mail to deal with. That was 10 years ago, so I'm not surprised that by now they'd be cutting letter delivery.
The problem comes when he thinks about making a deal that can't be made. Denmark can't sell Greenland. It's just not possible within their framework of relationship with the citizens of Greenland. So what will he do when it doesn't pan out? I don't know. We're seeing the same thing with Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not yet in a position where peace is possible. He wants to be seen making the peace. It can't happen, so he's going to punish Ukraine because they lost the blame game.
No, they won't go to war over it. But it'll be the end of the post war consensus, probably the end of NATO. It's a cliff, once you go over it there's no coming back.
Yeah I know. Not arguing, just pointing out it's not a small move. He's said a lot of stuff, but hasn't yet put the US in a position with it's allies that can't be rowed back.
You're right, I just found the option on desktop in the right-click context menu. According to some posts I've just found in the community forums, the feature was launched years ago but for some reason I had never noticed it even though Brave used to be my default browser until recently
I don't see any comments talking about it, and it's not mentioned in the article, but if it changes impulse control I wonder what effect that will have on politics. Hopefully one where people will take a longer view and look at policies rather than impulsively voting for the candidate they think they like the most.
I think the most likely political effect is from media consumption. There have been anecdotal reports of the drug helping people avoid doomscrolling compulsions, which likely means less exposure to various political social media.
Russia isn't a great power. Their economy is hollow. They have influence and military power inherited from the Soviet Union, but they don't have the capacity to keep that going, it's been nearly entirely expended on this one jaunt in Ukraine. They have a shrinking population of 144m and have shed their best in the last 2 years. India is a greater power with much more potential energy.
The reason for determining who is a "great power" is systemic, not based on individual country characteristics. India could be much stronger than russia, but if its surrounded by countries that are quite strong, it's hemmed in and not capable of dominating its region and hence not able to rival the real world powers (/ great powers).
A great (or "world") power is one which can leave its region militarily and could withstand an attack from the biggest power in the system (ie., the US).
All world powers see non-world-powers as their instruments: the EU was the US's instrument -- by bribery, threat, and protection racket it would get its own way, enrich itself, etc.
From the pov of these powers only they are soverign: hence vitnam, iraq, afganistan, cuba, etc. Hence the US engaging in a proxy war in ukraine in the first place.
India has pakistan and china to deal with, and its very unclear it can actually leave its area of the world. Hence the US doesnt have to treat it seriously. The only threats (to the US) are the powers that can withstand the US and "go on expiditions" with their militaries in regions that undermine US interests, and so on.
Here the US, mostly quite correctly, believes it can establish a detent with Russia -- but cannot with China. Russia is well-integrated into the western system, and only seeks to dominate a region the US has no interest in. The riskto it from china is far greater. It is very easy to imagine China in the western hemisphere, with a navy in a south american country -- it's nearly impossible to imagine this from India (and its highly unlikely from Russia).
India poses zero risk, nor is it clear it could ever. So regardless of what criteria you use, it will not factor into the thinking of the world powers.
The US in the 90s wanted poland (et al.) to be within its sphere of influence in the EU -- it's own instrument. It got its way. It over-reached trying to bring georgia and ukraine into the system, thinking Russia too weak to do anything about it. Well Russia isnt too weak, it has rebuilt its global status. So the US is running away and trying to reformulate a less ambitious foreign policy which its actually capable of executing
I kinda agree to your general point but it seems awfully shortsighted and narrow in the information it's based upon.
Narrow in the sense that Russia "has rebuilt its global status" while sacrificing many of their global position: security guarantor at Caucasus collapsed with Armenia and Azerbaijan war (something western media was oddly quiet about. Maybe due to the Turkish gass pipeline project), Losing ground in Syria and even report that the their influence in Africa through Wagner etc is not as great as it used to be.
Short sighted in that the take on India is true now, but would've equally applied to China around the time of Deng and it's opening up. It was also that same short sightedness that led US (with Kissinger) to side with Pakistan which is part of the reason you can't really call India aligned to US interest in any meaningful sense.
Sensible analysis, but only based on narrow fact, and ignoring historical context and the fact that those "insignificant parameters(non global power)" stil act on their own interests and more or less have some effect. ignoring that can often blow up in your face.
That's probably why the realists, which I'm assuming you're part of from the way you put things out, while sounding good on paper don't really have a great track record (mainly Kissinger, again.) of successful decision making.
Nothing was learned in the Vietnam failure, and it was repeated in Afghanistan by that line of thoughts.
Yes, plus Ukraine learnt a lesson when the GOP stalled aid and they ran low on supplies, so they have stockpiled and domestic production has increased. It's a war of attrition and so both sides are hoping to keep going until the other collapses. The US withdrawing support is a victory for Russian, but it won't end the war. What happens with sanctions might, but also without the US telling them what to do the gloves will be off Ukraine.
So much for stopping the war in 24hrs. Trump's plans were never going to work there, and both Russian and Ukraine were going to try and make it look like the failure was not their fault - guess Russian won that particular battle, maybe it was never even a contest.
Ukraine offered an alternative approach. They are willing to compromise on territory - i.e. stop fighting over it, not give up the claim to it. What they want, and they've said it again and again, is a security guarantee for the future to prevent Russia invading again. Either membership of NATO or a specific treaty. This is their one goal beyond coming under the control of Russia during this specific war, not having to worry about being invaded again. If they don't get it then they're likely to start developing a nuclear deterrent (they've already indicated this and they probably have the capability).
reply