I think they do. The logic holds as long as there is a method of faster than light communication, regardless of whether that method involves objects actually traveling faster than light or objects traveling through a wormhole.

Why FTL implies time travel

A bit technical but still readable. There’s fundamentally no way to travel faster than light that couldn’t be used to send information back in time.

I didn’t say that Israel is not on the offensive right now - it is. My point is that if the Iron Dome system is indeed compromised, that’s going to put pressure on Israel to stay on the offensive rather than to back down.

Let’s hope they keep this up and force Israel to back the fuck off.

I don’t see the same connection here that you do. A failure of Israel’s defensive weapons would require them to go on the offensive. The status quo from before the October 7 attacks was tolerable to Israel because they could shoot down incoming threats but if they no longer can, they must neutralize the ability of their enemies to launch those threats.

I think people (correctly) assume that the poll will be used as evidence to criticize Trump, and if they support him they don’t want to give his opponents that evidence. So they’ll say whatever doesn’t imply criticism of him.

Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.

I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.

I don’t think it’s something dogs are physiologically capable of doing, and even if it were, I think it’s unlikely that dogs would be trained to do it on command.

The claims about dogs seem quite implausible and call into questions the reliability of the rest of the the article, but I’m not sure how Israel actually plans to go from that to reaching the rather high threshold for providing libel in the USA.

I’m not claiming that he always thinks before speaking, or that he’s thinking before speaking this time. I’m just saying that he happens to have said what a person who did think before speaking would have said.

I presume they are evaluating all his actions in order to estimate how much domestic disapproval he’s willing to tolerate. They’re won’t be convinced that he will tolerate a lot simply by him saying so (since that’s what he would always say if he was rational) but if he were saying that he was very worried about prices going up, that could be significant to them (which is why he shouldn’t do it).

This is the correct thing to say, no matter what he might actually think. The less that he appears to be concerned about the cost of the war, the stronger his negotiating position against Iran is.

Students fail to make the is/ought distinction.

So? Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t have the moral intuition that an employer generally ought to keep employing people if it can afford to.

I’m rather more libertarian than most but I don’t think the free market, as generally envisioned, implies the freedom to send money to countries that your country is currently at war with.

I wouldn’t want to be one of the dudes in the speedboat though…

He’s saying that because the population of the USA is approximately 40 times larger than that of Israel, the loss of one Israeli life would diminish Israel to an extent proportional to how much the loss of 40 American lives would diminish the USA.

I find AI to be a better conversation partner than humans in most circumstances. It’s not perfect but it’s knowledgeable about pretty much every topic and it’s always fully engaged and attentive. Most people, by contrast, aren’t very interesting and most interesting people are busy. Of course I would prefer to talk to someone who was also subjectively experiencing and enjoying the conversation, but I can get a lot out of a conversation even without that.

There’s very little chance that the USA will accept the plan - among other things, that would mean paying reparations to Iran.

Are we? I’m looking to buy a car and I think gas cars make the most sense even now, because the change in the price of gas seems like a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. A one dollar increase in the cost of a gallon of gas works out to about $300 a year in extra costs for me. That’s not enough to tip the balance towards an electric car.

For reference, I’m comparing a Hyundai Elantra N to a Tesla Model 3 - the Hyundai costs as much as the base Tesla at about $36.5k, but to get similar performance you’d need the $42.5k premium Tesla, and that price difference pays for enough gas to go 40,000 miles.