America has won every war it's fought since at least Vietnam.
Your convoluted extended definition of winning would mean that Germany never defeated Poland or France. Or the British never defeated the Irish.
It's really a testament to how blithely lethal the US military is that you look at the wholesale destruction of one of the largest, most effective non-superpower states in the world and can honestly say out loud "the US didn't win the Iraq war"
I do. I also blame doctors for the current state of our healthcare. It's a reprehensible, pissant, milquetoast thing to stand up and say "oh i hate the way <my_system> is. But I refuse to organize to fix it and I'll externalize responsibility for change onto those outside the system being victimized, who have no power at all." Thats all scientists do, bemoaning the state of affairs it took them decades to create.
If you thought ai data center NIMBYism was bad, ask a scientist about effecting change in their lab or field
You do realize that doctors aren’t the ones denying Americans life-saving care, right? They’re not even setting the rates. They don’t mandate the system, the perform within it.
They save lives, and you blame them instead of the politicians taking money from lobbyists to keep private insurance death panels profitable.
It's exactly this mentality that is the problem. Doctors have much more agency that they admit. And they certainly can get more if they wanted to. Instead, they don't. And it's the constant refrain of "oh i absolutely just have got to follow along and enable" that's infuriating. No healthcare exec pretends they're disgusted with the system they support and strengthen. Doctors do.
You kill someone, expect to get hell from their family.
Eventually the paying customers will get their fair share, even if it takes the new interim CEO taking a few million dollar pay cut to save a few more hundred Americans paying them money every month.
The President of the United States committing to spending $1.2 trillion of public dollars to send every adult a one-time $5K check if we vote the way he wants us to, while some family members face $120K or more in medical debt, it’s just a wild time.
People sued apple for selling a device with no mention of ram and then apple released the next gen saying "this has more ram, you need to upgrade to it to use the features we advertised for last gen."
How about avoiding that scenario again? Is that a good enough reason? Being a diligent, informed consumer?
It's a tired reasoning that we have to read every time this comes up. China has been publicly doing what you say they won't if we only just let them buy asml. They've been doing it in 5 year Plans (tm) for decades now. You guys need to stop coming to in the middle of the episode and start chittering.
Yeah, it's a weird comment you see repeated too often that must be serving some agenda, but I don't know what. China's already moving towards chip independence as fast as they can. Nothing the rest of the world does or doesn't do will change that.
While I'm highly sympathetic to competing priorities crowding out movement to pq cryptography. At the same time it's not sudden at all. It's been 10 years since nist first said "move shit over"?
"bold-faced lie" and "bald-faced lie" are both valid expressions. The original expression is "bare-faced lie" but they're all pretty similar to each other.
Yes but only one of them makes most people who hear it think you don’t know the expression you’re trying to use. There’s no objective reason it has to be this way, but it is, and at least personally I appreciate being told when I’ve got something stuck to my back.
I don't really know why I should care what expression I'm trying to use (or what someone else is trying to use) as long as the intent is understood. If anything, people who are needlessly pedantic about the way I express things that they clearly understood are people I'm happy to get signal from so that I can minimize my need to interact with them going forward; it's much nicer to find out from something inane like this than to wait until we have a communication problem about something actually important.
bold-faced lie is just the usual English drift that was actually questioned as incorrect when it first surfaced. If a lie is bold, you don't have to suggest that the user's face is bold when doing it. You can in thirty seconds of google searching find numerous sources explaining that "bold-faced" is a malapropism.
It's the usual English drift perhaps, but "bold faced lie" has been used since the 17th century, which is also apparent from "thirty seconds of Google searching". Three hundred years is enough usage for me to count it as correct.
On a side note, "bold faced" does not mean the persons face is bold, only that it is said boldly, which implies a level of rudeness that "bald-faced" or "bare-faced" does not.
Modern references seem to align (for instance, Garner's): Bald-faced and bare-faced have slightly different connotation than bold-faced. Despite "bold-faced lie" being in somewhat common use, "bald-faced lie" is more common (over 2x according to google stats), and overwhelmingly agreed upon as the "literate" choice, unless an author intends to refer to the sort of lie that would headline an article.
> Generally, something to be avoided by people striving for clearer communication
Their communication seemed pretty clear to me. If anyone actually claims that they didn't understand what they meant but would have understood it by using the other form of the expression, I think that's a bold-faced lie.
Your convoluted extended definition of winning would mean that Germany never defeated Poland or France. Or the British never defeated the Irish.
It's really a testament to how blithely lethal the US military is that you look at the wholesale destruction of one of the largest, most effective non-superpower states in the world and can honestly say out loud "the US didn't win the Iraq war"
reply