hornokpleas

It doesn't matter what my beliefs are. If a significant minority of people who are going to be drafted believe that the war is unjust or unnecessary or that they should not be the ones to fight it, the effects which I described will happen. It is clear that for the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan this was the case.

There was no draft for the Gulf War. The United States entered WW2 after an unprovoked act of aggression against US territory.

I'm not sure which 'smaller conflicts' you are referring to because conscription has only been used in the Korean war, the American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War, other than the 3 already mentioned.

You are technically correct about WW1. The situation has changed in the more than 100 years since that conflict.

Most people are not like you.

The premise of your question is obviously flawed: it is not as easy. The precise reason why WA is used is that it's easier, because vastly more people already have it installed.

But anyway, it's just not a priority for a daycare.

Guaranteeing that for example staff don't respond to enquiries about children's health unless it's from the parents is a priority.

Both Switzerland and Israel have very high levels of belief in the purpose behind their country's military engagement. In Israel because (whatever you think about the causes or history of the wider conflict) most people feel, generally correctly, that the military is critically necessary to protect them from terrorism and other threats. In Switzerland because of the strong commitment to neutrality. The military is only designed to protect the country from external threats and the principle that it wouldn't get involved except in self defence is extremely important.

If the Swiss army was sent to distant countries to protect Swiss economic interest, to enforce a certain system of government, or even in 'self-defense' but against nebulous and theoretical threats, rather than the imminent risk of a direct attack, Swiss people would widely refuse to serve.

Similarly in America. If, for example, Canada carried out an aggressive land invasion of the United States, a very large number of people would be willing to serve, and accept a draft as well as poor conditions, low pay etc.

On the other hand, if there was a draft for young people to participate in controversial US overseas operations like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, there would be widespread resistance. Many people would evade the draft either illegally (going to prison, disappearing, moving abroad) or legally (using college exemptions, National Guard, bone spurs, etc). Some people in the military would refuse to follow orders, pursue criminal or radical political activity (more than they already do), sabotage or go AWOL.

This was attempted with the Vietnam war. It wasn't stopped despite its success. It was stopped because it didn't work and threatened to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces.

In the Whatsapp group, you don't have to share anything about yourself or your child that you don't want to. The daycare might only post very generic info about opening times, events, etc, or it might be one used only for parents to communicate among themselves, at their option.

Facebook know who is in the group and what they post but none of it is necessarily confidential information.

On the other hand, the daycare as part of their operations know lots of details of your children's development, health issues, allergies, mental health, educational attainment and special needs. They know if you are getting divorced, who has custody, if there are dangerous people in the child's life and so on.

Is keeping this private really in the same ballpark as choosing to have a WA group or not?

> Ideally the less manipulation you have the better working market. So, it's good that spoofing is illegal.

I think this is debatable. There's an ideal where no one spoofs and market prices are accurate at all times. But it's very difficult to enforce perfectly - there is no bright line test for whether you wanted a trade to execute or not, when you placed it. So in practice you are just always partially enforcing it and keeping the manipulation not too obvious.

The other possible solution is that anyone can place any order of any type any time they like, for any reason. The constraint is that if you place an order and it trades, you have to honour it. This leads to a situation where no one can trust the order book, but traded prices do reflect market truth - because of course no one wants to trade at an inaccurate price (not in their favour). The plus side is that it's much easier to make the system work. You don't have to run an arms race with people using sophisticated manipulation which can't yet be detected or prevented.

It's not clear whether order books giving (somewhat) accurate information is worth both the direct costs of enforcement and the potential unfairness of some spoofing rules being enforced and some not. It might be - but it's not clear that it definitely is.

There are two schools of thought: pronunciation as per the Catholic church, where the sound has evolved (to "ch") over hundreds of years of Latin being used as a working language, and pronunciation as per the Romans, for whom "c" was pronounced "k" (and "v" was pronounced "w").

Neither is really right or wrong, certainly neither is 'anachronistic'. Latin can be regarded as a classical, dead language, or as an ecclesiastical, priestly language, or as something else.

In practice, different pronunciations are used by people with different educational, cultural and religious backgrounds. In many cases the 'accepted' pronunciation is used to signify 'belonging' to a particular tribe (eg academic archeologists vs theologians educated at seminaries). In Scotland it was a sectarian marker (one of about a million obscure indicators of community allegiance) back in the days when Latin was widely taught in grammar schools.

FWIW, I have only ever heard mathematicians refer to the Russell book with a hard C.

In France drivers will flash their lights to warn you of police speed traps or other checks. (It's quite common for French police to stop and breathalyse all drivers on some rural road, especially on Sunday afternoons.)

I have driven in France loads and have literally never reached a police roadblock or radar trap without being warned by a vehicle coming the other way.

When I lived in one part of South London, I never saw this, or at least so rarely that I never figured out what it was supposed to mean. After moving to another, more suburban, part of South London, I see it all the time. shrug