"The cat" has different information in it than "kot." That same sentence also translates to "A cat is on the table," but no English speaker would say "the cat" and "a cat" have the same meaning. In fact, I can't think of a context where both sentences would be interchangeable. The listener either already knows which cat is "the cat" or would be confused. "A cat" implies an unknown cat. If you walk into your house and say "a cat is on the table," the assumption is its an unknown cat. If you say "the cat" it's most likely a pet. In some contexts that matters and some it doesn't, therefore you can't just say Polish compresses better.
The problem is that there are complex concepts that translate to a single syllable in some languages but requires a lot of context or explanation in other languages. Would these be "single instructions" or multiple? Then when you really break it down, many concepts are used grammatically but are not required based on their context. Should you count that as extraneous or not? An example is that some languages use a case system to indicate the epistemology of a statement, how the speaker knew that information (i.e. saw it first hand, heard it second hand, or saw evidence of it). Depending on the context, this may be vital or extraneous. Therefore the same statement that is "compressed" to remove useless information would be compressed two different ways. That doesn't seem feasible. All of this is to say, this sounds good in theory, but the complexities on practice are insurmountable.
Yes, passive voice is used effectively all the time. The rule was created by grammarian's who didn't understand its effectiveness or overstated its necessity. Judgement should be used to determine when it works.
The problem is that most people who say this don't know what the passive voice means. What they want to say is make the most important noun in the sentence the subject and keep the subject near the beginning of the sentence. That concept is only tangentially related to the grammatical voice being used.
There is no and has never been any true evidence that home schooled kids are worse at socialization then the ones that go to a traditional school, at least as far as I can tell. It's a meme that people propagate because it is "common sense," but none of the studies I've looked at supports it.
The Hubble tension is "bad" (i.e. shows a problem with) for current models of cosmology, hence strengthening it is making it "worse." Its like a hurricane, a strengthening hurricane is worse.
This is absurd nihilism. If we change the meanings of words then any sentence can mean anything and stating "every government is democratic" is a clear example of that.
Then this sentence makes absolutely no sense: "The Overthrow of the Shah then, was based on the requirement to not be beholden to anyone but the west when pricing Oil, to ensure the west had unmitigated control of how the largest oil property set prices."
The British and Soviet Union did invade and occupy Iran during the war. It was focused on controlling the railroads, but it led to the then Shah to abdicate.
The US and UK didn't overthrow the Shah, they helped him stop from being overthrown. If you can't even get the basics of the historical events we're talking about correct, you shouldn't be making broad generalizations about all of history.
The US and UK assisted a nationalist and westernized monarch retain and consolidate power. They did not install a theocratic government. The current theocratic government came into power as a reaction against the Shah the British and US had helped.
This is a question with no answer, but even with two parts of Japan's military tried to stave a couple to ensure the war would continue. Either way, even if dropping the second bomb only decreased the likelihood that an invasion of Japan was necessary or only shortened the war in China by a few months, it was worth it in human lives saved.
If your definition of "higher land usage" means a single hunter using "several hundred miles of territory" and a city and farmland on equivalent land is equal, then we just have fundamentally different definitions and this conversation useless. I'm fully aware that Europeans and their descendents committed genocide against the native population, that's not what I'm trying to argue against. But the idea that archeologically a deer trail that a hunter may have walked on once a year and his home he shared with a village, made tools with, and sheltered in are somehow equivalent because they were both "used" is absurd.
They weren't literally everywhere. Even today, with a much larger population and higher land usage, there is a lot of wilderness in the Southeastern United States. That's why finding a consistent indicator of an archeologicial site is important.
I don't see a meaningful distinction between "preventing disease" and "preventing spread of disease" in this context given we're talking about pathogens.
People don't want to donate to fixing something old, they want to donate to making something new, even when fixing something old is way more effective.
Economic projections like this are notoriously bad. For example, two editions of the same text book used the exact same graph showing the Soviet Union would pass the US is about 20 years... Despite the editions being twenty years apart.
In this thread: lots of people without any historical economic knowledge. Even in the 19th century, probably the peak of gold backed currency as we would consider it today, the world's economy was wracked by a boom bust cycle every ten years or so. We like to remember the great depression, but we should not forget the major depressions from the 1870s into the 1890s, and the serious of depressions in the US from the 1830s to the 1850s.
There were plenty of examples of countries devaluing their currency before World War I. No one was ever really on the gold standard, that was just what the governments were willing to exchange it for at times. The government could always alter the exchange rate or simply stop exchanging it for gold even if they were "on the gold standard." (Look at the Confederate dollar for an example). Also, the only reason World War I is the first World War is because we called it that. There were plenty of wars which involved multiple continents before that. For example, the Napoleonic Wars involved every continent but Antarctica.