For those not keeping up, while we in North America were sleeping, Ukrainian and separatist forces exchanged a few hundred mortar rounds across the line of contact, and a Ukrainian kindergarten was destroyed.
Because there were no reported military casualties and because this was not a conflict confirmed to involved uniformed Russian personnel, this does not count for purposes of my running poll on war risks.
However, the result of this little exchange appears to be that Putin is demanding that the US *abandon all of its bases in Germany*, which is absolutely nuts.
For those interested, here's the current poll. Vast majority of you think there is very low risk of war starting before 4:30 PM US Eastern time.
I think this is wrong. There will never be a surprise attack, because Russia's strategy rests on an overpowering aerial assault, electronic warfare, massive bombardment, etc. Russia cannot actually afford to take huge losses of ground troops.
So literally no matter when Russia attacks, it would have to be presaged by huge accumulation of troops and equipment and considerable action prior to crossing the border.
Key to remember that Ukraine's military actually has more men than Russia has available to invade.
And to provide that invasion force, Russia has basically stripped the districts east of the Urals of almost their entire military force. If somebody wanted to make a move on Siberia or whatever, now would be the time.
Is it reasonable for parents to prefer that their children speak the same language as them vs. some other language?
Is it reasonable for parents to prefer that their children learn to enjoy the kinds of food the parent enjoys?
Answer options here are "Yes, duh" or "I'm actually do not have a brain." Those are literally the only options, there is no middle ground.
Regardless of what may be efficient or useful for a child, it is entirely reasonable for parents to prefer that their children develop in ways which are comprehensible to the parent. Other concerns might motivate caveats or deviations, but the question is about the reasonability
Cogent article from @akarlin0 on why he thinks Russia will invade and win rather easily.
A few qualms with it though. To the extent season matters, the thaw already came: it's been above freezing and raining in Kharkiv for days! akarlin.substack.com/p/regathering-…
The slushy above-freezing rain is forecast to continue at least until this coming Tuesday, and there is no forecast yet for a return to below-freezing daytime highs. i.e. Russia has already lost the window for hard-frozen ground.
That said, it's not clear how much this actually matters, since as @akarlin0 notes, given Putin's pretty strong aversion to reporting casualties, Russia would likely try to use longer-range weapons as much as possible so they can roll into uncontested positions.
So apropos my controversial thread of the past few days, many commenters have claimed that I'm being bigoted because I'm worried a schoolteacher mentioning homosexuality will turn my kid gay.
Obviously, this is not at all what I believe.
But I think there are some people who do worry about that scenario.... and there are also people on the other side who believe *so deeply* in the immutable nature of sexuality that they make similarly implausible arguments.
So first of all, it's important to just empirically demonstrate that sexual identity is not perfectly static. Here's a nice longitudinal study looking only at adults in the US between 1996 and 2006, so it isn't "young people discovering their sexuality." link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Pets are a huge part of many peoples' lives. We spend money on them, we care about them, etc. Human-animal relations writ large are kind of a massive field of human social life and crucial for understanding human society.
And yet, even though shifts related to animal domestication and husbandry are key elements in the rise of settled human life, virtually no social surveys included any questions about animals until very recently. GSS added a pet question in *2018*.