More organs means more human!

I get it, but I’m talking about taking specific information from a facility that you can’t find online. There are records, but there isn’t an AI that can read all the drawings and churn out details.

Perhaps, but I’m talking about are problems within human limits. For example, take information from 5 different sources to synthesize an answer to a question.

The ability to process information. It seems like the reason need AI to summarize different things is because they never learned how to do it themselves.

It depends. I’m playing at a table where it isn’t any of the players’ first game and several players have wargaming experience. I can easily see the DM doing something like this and I wouldn’t fault them for doing so.

Less integrated and with more fear.

I thought what I’d do was, I’d pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

As an industry, headhunters have a vested interest in selling you since that is their business model. You aren’t the client, you’re the product.

Even by the 90’s, it was already accepted that being good with computers could be a great career path to make money. When I went to university in early 00’s, people who were on an engineering track commonly went into computers because the salaries were better than other engineering fields.

There were some people who loved the tech, but a lot of them made the choice due to financial reasons.

And if India officially changes its name to Bharat internationally, Pakistan will totally change its name to India.

Meta is paying to make its bots, Reddit gets it for free!

The problem is that Rockstar is trying to make a new engine with modern graphics, when the industry has been moving away from the cutting edge because of costs.

Employees like this usually cost the company at least double their salary in support and benefits, so you’re probably talking about half that at most.

Along with that, there is probably a lot of R&D expenses as well.

Finally, Meta seems to be subsidizing the consumer hardware, so that’s probably hurting the bottom line even more.

The development of standards doesn’t have to be seen as capitalist, though. There are benefits for non-capitalist economies to define standards as a way to achieve interoperability across different devices. For instance, I don’t see why a communist country wouldn’t standardize a power plug.

I look at the Suez Crisis more as a symbol of the shift in power. Maybe there is an example out there, but I can’t think of a similar humiliation that the UK had to deal with regarding having to pull out of a diplomatic crisis by the threat of a single ally/power since the Concert of Europe was implemented.

There is a lot to talk about regarding imperial powers in the Middle East, but I’m focusing more on the idea where power shifted from the UK to the USA.

Why would I want to prove that it is real. I’d go full Connecticut Yankee and build a modern empire with me at the head.

cementing the US as Israel’s main backer, and destroying what good will remained for France and Britain in the Middle East.

I’m going to quibble with this line.

It isn’t like the Suez Crisis made the USA Israel’s main backer, but that Israel realized it needed the USA rather than the UK or France. Israel had to invest a lot in shaping American foreign policy to benefit it.

Second, it isn’t like the UK and France had goodwill in the Middle East. Instead, this was the major rejection of the two imperial powers which diminished their role in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. From that point on, other nations and political groups in the Middle East knew that the USA had a credible veto on British and French imperial action in the area.

We’re seeing the beginnings of further European integration. Who knows, there may even be an EU military in the future.

While everyone is talking about World War II, it is kind of important to discuss what led the USA to become capable of taking over.

First, the USA was a giant as a successor nation to American colonization. It had significant natural resources, a relatively easily navigable interior, and a budding industrial sector. Unlike Spanish colonies, the USA had pretty good national institutions where wealth could be created.

After the War of 1812, the UK had already shifted its strategic approach to the USA. The UK would allow the USA to be a local hegemon as long as the USA respected existing British colonial claims. This led to the Monroe Doctrine, partially enforced by the UK. There were also a lot of cases where the UK chose not to press claims to antagonize the USA. This included a peaceful solution to the Oregon Territory crisis and not participating in the French invasion of Mexico.

The USA was considered to be a rising great power by the end of the 19th century, including destroying the remnants of the Spanish Empire. Many nations recognized that the USA benefited from the same geographical features that the UK did, with the homeland being far removed from any other competing power.

The USA could have credibly become the leading great power after World War I had the USA not chosen to go into isolation after the war. By then, it was apparent that the USA had a military and economy to be a major international player, but the US Republican Party didn’t want to agree to the international commitments.

So, by the end of World War II, the USA was already the preminent economic power for at least a generation. The USA was then able to build a military capable of fighting a two front war while supplying many of its allies in the war. Meanwhile, the UK was seeing its empire fall apart and knew it couldn’t afford to be the international leader. Choosing between the USA and USSR, the UK chose the USA.

That might be true of you, but that likely isn’t true for a lot of people. I can see a lot of people blanking out over the chemical that have everyone cancer in that movie.