o4b

If the point was "write a prototype/less efficient version prior to the more time consuming but better quality solution" then maybe they should have written that.

The connotation with plan B is you do plan A, then if it doesn't work, you do plan B. If you are supposed to implement plan B first then really plan B is plan A.

Schools should maximize student learning among many other competing dimensions (cost, accessibility, etc). Where does a commitment to OSS sit in that list?

Who is looking to read this content on a pager? The interface for 99% of folks has been degraded for this benefit.

This is why simple styling plus a printer-friendly page work wonders.

Agreed. Is it typically worse than no support?

The right software for kids allows them to be productive in minutes, has a limited feature set, focuses the child on the core subject matter, and gets them excited for more.

I don't think that either Photoshop or GIMP meet this for the vast majority of students and classes. I definitely could see some advanced students and high school courses making use it, though.

I think LibreOffice and Notepad++ are just fine and could be used as a drop-in replacement.

This is the singular most out of touch comment in the entire thread. The vast majority of them _do not want_ to learn, and "its not hard" is simply false.

Darker

Beautifully put, scotuswroteus.

"The tyranny of the minority is infinitely more odious and intolerable and more to be feared than that of the majority"

- William McKinley

Luckily enough, the (loud) minority on this one is getting overruled.

OK, tell me how it does work.

Russia obliterates Katowice, one of several countries obliterates Volgograd. What is the next move? You just ended the lives of a million of your citizens. You just stop there?

I don't think you can clearly state anything about my imagination based on a handful of comments on the internet.

The scenario that we have been discussing is NATO's response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member such as Estonia. What are NATO's options?

1. Full scale (offensive) war. They attacked us, we will end this in Moscow 2. Repel the attack, take no aggressive action beyond what is required to come to a stalemate 3. Do nothing

I have argued elsewhere with you that I don't see 1. as being at all likely due to NATO's goals, defensive posture, and military superiority.

Doing nothing would only embolden Russia and destroy any pretense of an alliance at all. If not in Estonia, when would NATO intervene? Poland? Germany?

Thus, repel the attack and take no aggressive action. De-escalate and give options for Russia to save face.

We don't have to bet that a single person is not unhinged enough to press the button. There are command and control limitations purpose-built into even Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin also wouldn't want his historical legacy ruined by the thorough destruction of the present and future of Russia. I'd go further to say that he knows all this, and wouldn't invade a NATO member in the first place.

I was specifically responding to throwaway4aday that I do not believe that hawks in NATO that desire the full destruction of Russia will win the argument to pursue an offensive war against Russia.

One reason I think this to be true is exactly the risks that you mentioned - the more hot the war gets, the more bodies, the more likely mistakes are made.

What would make Russian leaders desperate enough to launch a Nuclear strike against the West? Comprehensive embarrassment by NATO and the US flag towering over Red Square seems to be just about the only one that I can think of.

No way do the hawks win that argument.

Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia. As much as we like to think Putin is unhinged or desperate, as much as Putin says a nuclear response could happen, he knows this.

What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?

I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.

Hitler in 1939 had economic/industrial parity with at least one, if not two of his primary combatants (France and UK). He then had good reason to believe that other countries either would not engage (USA) or were highly overrated (USSR). He also had allies of significant weight. (1)

Russia in 2022 has a GDP of $1.5T, and NATO has a combined GDP of $42T (2). Even if you make the case that Russia's current economic activity translates more effectively into wartime industry, I don't believe you can possibly make the case that it is 28x more effective.

Germany also had military technology and strategy advantages (see France in 1940) over its (early war) opponents. As good as Russia's "math and science talent" is, I would be shocked if it was even a quarter of the capability that the US alone has.

So no, Putin in 2022 is not comparable to Hitler in 1939.

(1) - http://www.zuljan.info/articles/0302wwiigdp.html. (2) - https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

I have not laughed like this for weeks. Well done OP.