Someone might counterargue that building bombs that do nothing but explode (or worse, destroy assets) is not a benefit to the economy, and that the 90s had an economic boom as the world returned to peace, and anyway government spending doesn't matter (economically) if it's on bombs or on anything else.

It would be interesting if you looked up how much benefit was from war spending and how much was from other effects. I think you will find there is not actually a correlation.

Trump pointed out that most countries didn't meet their obligations, and most of those countries ignored him. It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets.

In 2014 only 3 nato members met the 2% target (USA, UK, Greece):
https://www.nato.int/content/d...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

America can push Israel to accept a two state solution, but they can't push Palestinians to accept a two state solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine no later than 2010.

No because Russia was/is much weaker, too. There is no chance for them to reach the Rhine.

Usually the term used is near peer.

Russia is the country that had an alliance with all the major parties in WW2.

I don't pretend to know what Trump's goal was, but he did succeed in getting Europe to take the active role in the Ukraine conflict. They are taking care of it now.

Most Americans would rather have $100 in their pocket than a dominant role in global geopolitics.

ROTFL you don't know good prose.

Only if you reject the true (continuous) timezone. Timecube guy was wrong, it's not a cube, it's a sphere

Not really, you can have a pre-processor that text-matches (maybe with a regular expression) phrases like "what time is it?" or "wut tim" and responds with the appropriate time. Doing it that way actually saves processing power.

It's not a very good analysis. Israel is not a monolith, it's made up of many people of varying power. Some want peace, some don't. When violence happens, it increases the power/influence of people who don't.

I think he was probably correct when he asserted "AI will be a part of the way all games are made".

IIRC, he was using that idea (which is speculation) as a starting-point from-which to develop the more general idea 'it does not make sense' - logic fail FTW.

I'm more concerned with the bizarre attempt to cover-up the use of AI than I am with the use of AI. What do they know which we might want to?