The US government doesn't want to provoke a war or attempt to bring about social changes through threats. — frank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Oh, wait, another thing - opening up the possibility of a limited nuclear war makes it much more likely. — T Clark

If this risk exists, maybe a better decision will be using this approach against the CCP instead of Putin. The US should declare and spread this information in the Chinese web: the US will install a military base in Taiwan, but they can reverse this decision if CCP performs a referendum in China, with the suggestions to unblock youtube and wikipedia in the Chinese web. I am sure this can work.

In a conspiracist's world, perhaps. Or perhaps both a controlled by a third, hidden agent? — SophistiCat

For me, this is rather not a conspiracy but something Freudian.

Some many of those popular people live much better than me, I don't envy them at all. In fact I feel sorry for them having to work so hard to be popular. — Sir2u

Such people as you are exceptions, as I think.
I have heard that according to American psychologist D. Myers, an increase of crime level in USA happened in 1951-1955 because of the appearance of TV shows in which the heroes showed a high lever of richness and consumption. I mean that the TV viewers started to compare themselves with rich TV heroes and feel envy to them.

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc... — javi2541997

I don't like this point of view. Currently the Russians are insane fascists, and I hope they will be cured by the West, as the Germans were.. And yes, both Russians and Germans had had a rich culture before the insanity.

An example of a situation which can be studied by the game theory is aTruel:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truel


One example of this game was described in a book of Martin Gardner. Three shooters A, B, C have chosen a truel. A never misses, B hits 80% of the time, C hits 50% of the time. In such a game, C has the best chance of winning because he can shoot into the air first while A and B are shooting at each other.

My question is: is it possible to suggest some variants of this truel in which players have access to the Mach–Zehnder interferometerwith bombs, and this can change the probabilities of the outcomes. I mean something like this: player C does not shoot either A or B, but creates a superposition of these two states, and in one of the states also sends a message to B - if you don’t want me to shoot at you next time, do as I ask. I hope my idea can be understood.
Quote ReplyReport Edit Delete

What is your native language? — Paine

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe.
If the English in my previous post was bad, maybe I should use ChatGPT more often for word translations. How reliable is it for this task, what do you think?

This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine

Well, I used the google translator since my English is not perfect...

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles. — ssu

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally, and if it is possible to achieve the honesty of this assessment. The same scheme can solve all the problems of separatism in democratic countries. Do you guess what I mean?

I have a question: how much were the taxes in the north states and in the south states prior to the war? Maybe the latter were higher?

The Game of Chicken illustrates cases where people can win through "rational irrationality":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)



This is an explanation of the politics of Kim Jong Un and Putin, and my idea is, that in the quantum reality the civilized world can find solutions against this.I hope my idea does not look crazy, because the EV bomb experiment is "crazy" already and the physicists must know that.

Meaning? — tim wood

Before the Linkoln's speach, the States were "states" in the meaning of "countries" to a relatevely big extent. And a war betreen these countries started.

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is. — tim wood

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war?

Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board. — Lionino

Sorry, I am a newbie here, maybe the thread can be moved?