I know you think that makes sense, but I can't parse it into something sensible. It sounds like you're saying "Russia was a conquering empire while it was being conquered by outsiders."
Perhaps you mean something like "The conquerors of Russia were a conquering empire and they established permanent dominance over Russia." Which I think is true, but that doesn't have Russia being a conquering empire throughout history. A source says some of the Tsars were descendants of Viking Chieftans from the Ukraine. (It also says "they were invited to rule", but I suspect "invite" is a very "diplomatic truth".) Being taken over by someone doesn't make you a conquering empire, even if they bring an army along.

I'm sure you're right, but when? The vikings conquered it at one point. The Mongols demanded tribute from parts, and conquered other parts. At one point Lithuania held at least the Ukraine. Most modern states don't really have a long history. I think there was a period where Poland was the aggressive empire. Saying "throughout history" is just wrong.

It existed in 1950. Many people living in it wished it didn't exist, but it did.

It has been at very high cost to Ukraine. But perhaps they don't want to be eaten piece by piece by Russia.

I think you're wrong about the "throughout history". The Mongols and the Huns were not Russians. IIRC, Russia has been invaded more often than it has been the invader. If you'd said "since 1900", or "since 1850" you might have a point (though I'd need to check).

I'll agree that is sure didn't make things better, but those are temporary changes, and, e.g., EVs still have the problem of how to charge them if you don't have a garage...which LOTS of people don't. That really needs to be solved.

It's hard to find any good thing to say about Trump, but this was already a problem, and he didn't make it much worse. Blame him for other things. You won't need to look very hard.

Actually, I think CPT invarience means there is a difference. But this only applies to weak-force interactions.

When your starship will run on one anti-matter atom.

Actually, anti-matter factories are possible, but probably not in a strong gravity field surrounded by positive matter. (Also they aren't cheap to power. It takes a lot of power to create mass, and you need to create twice as much as the amount of anti-matter you end up with, even if you get 100% efficiency.)

That's unfair. He didn't improve things (except by closing the strait or Hormuz), but he didn't make things that much worse. We were already increasing the rate of CO2 emission every year.

I suspect a lot of people store that information unencrypted on their computer, so the AI could find it on its own initiative. There may be other ways, but I guess the stupidest one first.

Actually, an AI can't be made legally responsible because current law doesn't recognize it as even a sentient entity, much less a legally responsible one. It's less accountable than a three year old bashing keys at random. But you can also kill it (i.e. the instance you are running) with no accountability.

The company the runs or provides access to the AI, however, is a different matter. But they've got a bunch of fancy lawyers that will argue that it wasn't their fault.

What entity do you believe bears the legal obligations? The AI software? Your local machine? The company that's running the AI? The company that designed the AI? Someone else?

Most of those things can't have legal responsibility. I suppose the companies could, but they've got strong legal departments that will argue otherwise.

Only if it happened a decade or two ago.

No. A court has decided that the stuff emitted by an AI isn't copyright.

They have a *history* of being fraudulent (at least after the fact, I don't know intent). Solar+wind+storage is a lot quicker and, I believe, usually cheaper. And it's got a short enough turn around that we can tell what it's going to cost.