Let's say the average gas station has 12 pumps and that on average, it takes 5 minutes to fill your tank with gasoline. This means that the station could theoretically service 720 cars per hour. Now compare that to an EV charging station with 12 charging bays and assume each EV requires an hour to charge. The EV station can recharge...12 cars per hour. DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM YET?

I don't know the solution to the wicked problem that you've posed, but as a HAM radio operator for the past 25 years, I wonder if there are aspects from the amateur radio community that could be referenced as a model. As I listened to one of the evening local nets on 2 meters this evening, I realized that on-air conversations follow strict rules which are enforced by the users themselves, such as no profanity, no commercial use, etc. The discussions are refreshingly civil regardless of topic - although that may be because operators are sensible enough to avoid conversations about religion, politics, and other win-lose issues. All users are licensed and infractions are reported to the FCC who has the ability to levy substantial fines for violations in this code of conduct. So the bottom line is that I'm opposed to externally-imposed censorship, but I am in favor of community adopted standards of behavior. Those standards should cover HOW we communicate, not WHAT can be communicated - which I think is the big problem right now. Much of the discord today and the de-platforming actions take to date by big tech are based on efforts to prevent what can be said online, even if how it is said is delivered respectfully and with civility. That is a path that will lead to a very dark place.

...if you really want to increase productivity, just block all web traffic except over lunch hour. :)

Get yourself a Raspberry Pi Model B and a case ($50). Add-on a 128 GB USB thumbdrive or a hub + SSD if you need more space. Now install OpenVPN, SSH + SFTP, and Unison. Signup for a DDNS service (e.g. No-IP) - you can try it for free or pay $$ to lose the monthly reminders.

You now have the following capabilities:

1. Secure VPN from any public hotspot - conduct your transactions safely and securely.
2. Secure "cloud" access via SFTP - your files are stored behind two layers of encryption if you use RSA keys for SSH / SFTP.
3. Secure remote console access so you can fix anything goes wrong.
4. Secure file sync via Unison between as many computers as you like.

I've used this setup for a year now w/o a problem...

P.S. Owncloud is unstable for large files.
P.P.S. Bittorrent sync works great...if you want to trust a closed-source application with your private data.

I think you're prisoner's dilemma analogy is spot-on. Unfortunately, that particular case study never seems to turn out well for the prisoners.

I also agree with your scenario analysis. Both the nonfiction book "Caging the Nuclear Genie" and the fiction book "One Second After" discuss how less than a hundred nuclear devices, targeted at critical infrastructure elements (sea ports, bridges, power stations, etc) could effectively cause nationwide collapse and a return to essentially pre-industrial civilization. In this scenario, most of the casualties are due to starvation or exposure, rather than radiation or blast effects.

A tough problem to be sure, and one with no easy solution. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion!

I actually think we're in agreement on at least one thing: Nuclear weapons only make life "safer and peaceful" for those who have them, which is what I meant by "how you keep score".

Imagine for a moment you were suddenly elected President of Iraq and could immediately acquire a credible and robust nuclear deterrent. Would you do it? I sure as hell would. Unless my country has a nuclear deterrent, I am at risk to all the scenarios you outlined above - and since my country has resources that other countries need, I am very much at risk w/o an "equalizer" on the field of battle.

So, I ask again - would you do it?

It's one thing to be bent on world domination, and quite another to have the ability to carry it out. Back in 1944, it was an option. Today, with nukes on the table, it's not. What do you think keeps crime in check - the police? Criminals are much more afraid of being shot and killed by an armed citizen than being caught by the cops. The same thing applies to nations, which is why there will never be a major conflict between nuclear powers unless one side's nuclear deterrence is rendered impotent first.

The math works like this:
1. If I have nukes, and you don't, I get to do whatever I want to you - invade your country, take your resources, whatever. This is the preferred state for me - and I will do everything in my power to maintain it.
2. If we both have nukes, I can't win a major conflict with you, so there's no point in starting one. If I attack you with conventional forces, you'll counter with nuclear strikes once you start losing. I don't like this scenario because I can't impose my will on you, but instead have to treat you as an equal, whether I like it or not.

BTW, political leaders dislike nukes because it takes some of their options away. Oil prices to high? Let's go take someone elses...oh, drat, they have a nuclear deterrent. The military-industrial complex dislike nukes because they're bad for business - who need's trillions of dollars in soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and warships when a few hundred nukes will provide all the security you need? Of course, that also rules out all that nation-building stuff that every empire wants to do...

In any event, we'll know the answer in a few more decades. Nuclear technology is 70 years old now - it's only a matter of time before it's widespread. What happens after that will be...interesting.

Excluding WW1 and WW2, how many of the slain were from countries that had nuclear weapons? Alternatively, how many were killed by internal strife - civil wars, ethnic cleansing, etc? Not to sound jaded, but it depends on how you keep score.

Nuclear weapons will not keep states from killing their own citizens, but they most assuredly will prevent two nuclear powers from escalating conflict beyond a certain point.

A fascinating question. Since I agree with Nidi62's excellent post, here's how I think it would play out, assuming that Germany, England, France and the US had nuclear weapons at the start of WW2: Germany exterminates their local Jewish population and invades those countries that do not have a nuclear deterrent. England, France, and the US decry Germany's actions, push for economic sanctions, and fund / equip the local freedom fighters / terrorist groups (depending on your point of view) to promote "regime change" and make life for Germany difficult. The "Allies" don't invade - they can't afford the casualties. Germany becomes isolated from the world stage and ends up as impoverished as North Korean. The people of Germany either effect their own regime change, or live for generations in misery. The thing about nuclear weapons is that they make a country proof against foreign invasion. All predators seek out easy prey - the kind that can't hurt them - and nation-states, whether acting morally or not, prefer easy prey...hence the hypocracy about nuclear proliferation.

You can't just pick a tactical tool as the magic bullet for success. Done correctly, the daily standup is an integral part of an iterative, incremental development process (Agile) which focuses team members on the work much must be completed within the current iteration (sprint). The PM and the Product Owner get a quick snapshot of progress and the team members get to request assistance on any blocked deliverables (user stories). This is a good thing.

OTOH, mandating a daily standup w/o also implementing an Agile framework is a waste of time...All you get is people standing in a circle wondering why they're their and what they should be doing.

P.S. I count at least 25 people in the photo from the WSJ article. Agile teams are 7 +/- 2 people. No way their meeting is gonna take only 15 minutes!

An interesting question. I humbly suggest that the objective of the course should be to expose students to as many different facets of the SciFi / Fantasy spectrum as possible given the time constraints.

The genre isn't just "SciFi" and "Fantasy" - it's much, much broader than that. The instructor should identify the segments first, and then allow the students to choose in which directions they want to explore. Here are some examples:

"Epic" Fantasy: J.R.R. Tolkien, Raymond E. Feist, Ursula K. LeGuin., and Michael Moorcock.
"Gaming" Fantasy: Marget Weiss & Tracy Hickman (DragonLance), R.A. Salvatore (The Darkelf Trilogy), and Gary Gygax (Gord the Rogue).
"Gritty" Fantasy: Steven Brust (Vlad the Assassin) and Robert Lynn Asprin (Thieves World).
"Traditional" Fantasy: Robert E. Howard (Conan) and Edgar Rice Burroughs (John Carter / Barsoom).

You can do the same kind of thing with SciFi...

"Military" SciFi: Keith Laumer (Bolos), David Drake (Hammer's Slammers), and - of course - David Weber (Starfire, Honor Harrington, and the Dahak series)
"Traditional" SciFi: Robert E. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, and Ray Bradbury.

...you get the idea.