Yes. Ukraine had a chance in 2022 because Putin sent a very small force assuming that he could convince Putin to agree to the peace deal where they'd stop killing Ukrainians in Donbass. And it would have worked if NATO hadn't offered to send all the money and weapons Ukraine wanted to keep the war going.
Ukraine then pushed the Russians back because the Ukrainian military outnumbered the Russian forces and suddenly they had Starlink for communications, US intelligence data to tell when where the Russians were, and all the weapons they could eat. But once they failed to push the Russians out of Ukraine it was just a matter of time for Putin to build up the available forces and ramp up weapons production. There was no way to win after that other than for NATO to send in troops, and no NATO government wants to do that.
Now either NATO will send in troops or Ukraine is going to get a much, much worse deal than they were offered in 2022 and it may not longer even exist as a viable country. Particularly if Putin takes Odessa as well and cuts rump Ukraine off from the Black Sea entirely.
Ah yes, I guess they weren't *true* Scotsmen either?
In this case, I mean literally... literally. You can find citations trivially. Everyone should know this by now. If you want to talk about Nazis, you should know something about Nazis.
"Remember, Na-Zi means National SOCIALIST, and that's that fascism is."
Remember, the Nazis literally called themselves socialists to fool stupid people, and you also don't know what either socialism or fascism is if you think one is a type of the other.
He wasn't a Nazi but George Washington did a genocide and was named "Town Killer" for it. And before someone points out that was his father, no, his father (who was also named George) ALSO did a genocide and was called the same thing for the same reason.
It's doesn't sound like a successful business venture if you're having to increase operation expenses at this rate and not be raking in the revenue.
Yes, Google is profitable now. Tremendously so. But they're at risk of losing revenue and ceasing to be profitable as people cease using Google search and switch to asking questions of their AIs. So to retain their position as the place people go first for information, they have to stay ahead of the AI race. Well, they could also just sit back and wait to see if their competitors are overwhelmed by the query volume, but that risks losing traffic and then having to win it back. It's much better to keep it. And Google is better-positioned to win this race than its competitors both because of its existing infrastructure and expertise and because it already has the eyeballs.
In addition, you seem to be assuming that doubling serving capacity means doubling cost. Clearly Google is not planning to increase their annual operating expenses by 1000X. As the summary actually says in the third paragraph, Google is also going to have to improve efficiency to achieve the growth rate, with better models and better hardware. This is what the AI chief is challenging the employees to do; he's not challenging them to write bigger OPEX checks, that's his job.
NT existed when IBM brought out at least two major versions of OS/2 without such features while NT had them, so... No.
> And that means you vote for politicians who'll do it. If you're American that means a Democrat.
You mean, like the Microsoft anti-trust case which was filed in 2001 when both President and House were Republicans and the Senate was 50:50?
Has there been any anti-trust case against big business since then? Maybe the Democrats did something but I can't remember anything like that offhand.
At this point, expecting elections to do anything just makes you look incredibly naive. It's clear that the only thing the vast majority of populations care about is grift.
> The thing is, there's money to be made in AI, LOTS of money
Sure, just about everyone is losing money pushing "AI", but they'll make it up on volume.
I'm not in the homeschooling universe, but I have yet to meet a second-generation homeschooler. Like, anyone I know who was homeschooled sends -their- kids to school (public, private, parochial, boarding, single-sex, co-ed) - anything but homeschool. Thoughts?
I know a few. I don't know what it may or may not mean. It may be relevant that the ones I know used a community-based approach, where groups of homeschooling families worked together to create something akin to a school, with different parents teaching different subjects. This meant that while the kids socialization groups were small, they did hang out with and learn with other kids, not just their siblings.
"I think trash is the most important manifestation of culture we have in my lifetime." - Johnny Legend