It was a needlessly snarky way to word it, but they are right. The issue is the verb 'scale/s' rather than 'advance/s'
45 karma · joined January 14, 2020
Anyone interested in the theoretical underpinnings of the idea can read about it in the blog post [1] the co-authors wrote. For anyone who objects to the idea that rote-memorisation can aide learning rather than simply let you mechanically repeat facts, you should read the paragraph "How important is memory, anyway?" [2].
[0]: https://quantum.country/ [1]: https://numinous.productions/ttft/ [2]: https://numinous.productions/ttft/#how-important-is-memory
1. While Russia warned against NATO expansion, it wasn't (and still isn't) in their power to do anything to stop it. Its actions have resulted in the expansion of NATO, a reasonably forseeable result.
2. NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia. If their concern is the ability of the US to store missiles and other military gear on its border, too late - the Baltics are already members. It would be an odd choice to invade purely based on the likely future expansion of an alliance that is designed to prevent you from invading its members.
3. NATO expansion or no, an independent, westward-leaning Ukraine is not an acceptable outcome. This would make NATO expansion irrelevant or at best an ancillary cause.
It's also worth noting it's not like this is the first time Russia has invaded and occupied one of its neighbours. AFAIK Georgia wasn't about to join NATO. We can't see counterfactual universes, but in my view an equally valid possibility is that NATO has stopped what is happening in Ukraine from happening in the Baltic states.
Overall the facts don't line up well with the theory that this is a response to NATO expansion, and therefore the US is to blame - it might be a factor, but more serves as a rhetorical justification Russia can use that it knows people in the US and UK can use domestically.
If you're a realist about international relations it's pretty easy to see why the UK and US might see it as in their geostrategic interest to prolong the war, and that might have been a factor. It's also worth noting there was a huge amount of public pressure for both to react. Either way, in their view, a longer war is worth it for a pro-western Ukraine, and Ukraine seems to agree. As for acting to prevent an agreement, that's largely speculation, but either way, the final choice was still Ukraine's.
Some of them can be quite... weird.
I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.
Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans.
All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.
What surprised me is the magnitude of the effect in photos that were clearly taken after the advent of widespread mainstream colour photography. I'd have guessed the difference between the colour and non-colour groups would shrink considerably since colour would be much more a reflection of artistic choice than technological or resource constraint.
That's not the goal of Wikipedia. The goal is to make knowledge freely available to as many people as possible. That's fantastic that you were given the opportunity to learn English and have made the best of it. That is not everyone though. It's not reasonable to expect a farmer in Malaysia to know English or to learn it purely to take advantage of what's there.
While not the same idea, it reminds me of garden path sentences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
Say, for example, if the professor put the answer up on Blackboard, seemingly by accident, which came in the form of an incorrect answer to a real exam question. They could then give everyone who gives the wrong answer an XF. I'd wager that would be most people, barring the few smartest who noticed the error. Could you really blame people for wanting to get it right and not handicap themselves relative to the other students?
Given that, the university then has a responsibility to make it as hard as possible to cheat. Fail grades for cheating work because they create an incentive to avoid cheating. Except in this circumstance the incentive effect could not work because the student had no idea they'd be able to be caught.
Would you be interested in sharing with us what happened here?