Pretty sure this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Edit: OP deleted it now, and I wish I saved it, but he originally posted a long spiel on how math is undemocratic because anyone can prove anyone else wrong.
Phillip figured out how to defeat the Greek phalanx (although it took him a while) and had some very limited success against the Persians. Alexander not only made short work of the Greek revolt on Phillip's death, but also went on to defeat the Thracians in their native mountains, the Scythians in their steppe, the Tyrians in an almost impossible siege, the largest Persian armies ever assembled, and of course the Indians with their elephants - at the end of some logistical lines that would be challenging for even mechanized armies.
Should the generals have been the secret to Alexander's success, he died young enough that they had plenty of chances to show their own mettle. But they got pushed back everywhere instead, not only by the rising powers of Rome and Carthage but also by Alexander's partially defeated enemies: the Indians, Scythians and, most humiliatingly, even by the Thracians. The significance of the "Great" nickname was not that they regarded him as a great moral teacher, or an example to be followed by the average person; rather, when looking at Macedonian kings before and after Alexander III, he stood out by far due to his accomplishments. Had he done nothing but founded the wonder-laden city of Alexandria, which dominated the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries, they would have still considered him "Great".
> Is my kid really going to be a better student because she volunteered at a hospital or played high school softball?
Unfortunately, kids from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds have fewer opportunities to volunteer and to pursue expensive sports. These colleges are, in effect, selecting for what Thorstein Veblen would have called "conspicuous leisure" and "conspicuous consumption", i.e. for an upper middle-class background (or above). A long time ago I applied to one of the top business schools in the US and was told quite directly, during the interview process, that the MBA program was mostly about networking and not so much about academics. It looks like this attitude has now expanded to many four-year colleges as well. In business terms, it's all about "culture fit" these days.
Yep. It's a cycle where they select based on this, and those folks go on to do well due to network / opportunity. Not saying they don't have talent, but there isn't a lack of talent in the lower class either.
+1 for mastic, completely nontoxic and it's been used for thousands of years. My cavity problems have pretty much disappeared since discovering it several years ago.
For someone trying it for the first time, I would recommend the Falim chewing gum, available on Amazon, or the mint-flavored toothpaste at mastic.gr. If you feel comfortable trying pure mastic, the best quality that I've found are the large tears from Chios Mastiha Growers Association.
Did the ad suggest to you that the iPad was a replacement for cheap, low quality physical objects? That would not be very good copy for Apple. On the contrary, all the instruments etc. seemed rather nice to me. The piano alone was probably worth thousands of dollars.
Yes, a closer analogy would be "look, this guy had a basketball signed by Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant in 1996, and now it's being blown to smithereens and replaced by a 3D model on his iPad".
If I saw a house, that looked like the one where I grew up, being cheerfully destroyed to build a Walmart parking lot, yes I might get a little distressed. It would certainly not improve my opinion of Walmart.
Just because the defense is stronger doesn't guarantee it will always win. Take two sports teams with different levels of skill, for example. In a single game, the team considered weaker can pull off a surprise win. However, over a span of several games, the stronger team will usually pull ahead.
In war, various factors, like the element of surprise, can allow the offense to temporarily overcome an inherently stronger defense. In 1940, the Germans quickly overran the French by catching them off guard tactically and strategically. The French couldn't adapt their defense quickly enough and suffered too many crucial losses early on.
Next year, the Soviets fared even worse than the French initially; but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks. The French themselves had a similar experience in WW1: after initially surviving for two hard years, they gave the German attackers a very bloody nose at Verdun.
>but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks.
At Kursk as your first example? I agree that the battle of Kursk showed the Germans how their best tanks could be crushed, but it's not a good example of your point as I understand it.
Firstly because the main reason for victory wasn't so much the ability to destroy German tanks. The Soviets already had this well before July of 1943. Instead victory was because they knew German attack planning in advance and were able to prepare an incredibly robust defense in depth against them while also concealing a superbly equipped counterattack.
Secondly, Kursk isn't the best example because the Battle of Stalingrad much earlier showed how it was possible to stop and then destroy a powerful, well equipped German Army with a tenacious defense and then even mount a ferocious counter offensive (operation Uranus).
Part of the success of Stalingrad for the Soviets was also due to a major earlier blunder of confidence by Hitler, who thought the 6th army alone was enough to take Stalingrad and ordered its accompanying 4th army to separate away from 6th and continue south to join the rest of the previously already split Army Group South (in an even earlier Hitler order that further weakened the later attack on Stalingrad) for an attack on the Caucasus
I felt Kursk was a good example of the superiority of defense over offense in WW2 as the other factors were generally even (no major surprise, both sides had good logistics etc.) Everything you say about Soviet preparations is right, that's how good you could make a defense with WW2 tech if you knew what you were doing!
>I felt Kursk was a good example of the superiority of defense over offense in WW2 as the other factors were generally even (no major surprise, both sides had good logistics etc.)
Fair enough and I see your point, though I still consider Stalingrad a more interesting example of how effective defense can be specifically because there (unlike at the Kursk Salient), the Soviet forces were at first inferior, weakly prepared and poorly commanded, yet still managed to grind the Germans to a gradual halt before grinding them down entirely through sheer tenacity.
And if we're arguing about the wider viability of both organized and even improvised defense tactics vs. intense, well-done offensive tactics, especially when you draw enemies into a complex urban area, Stalingrad excels as an example of what's possible.
I'm sure there are legitimate cases where sedation is reasonably the best available solution. The problem is - who draws the line? There was a case the other day where a university professor was tackled to the ground, her head hitting the cement, and forcefully handcuffed because she had tapped a police officer on the shoulder asking him to stop what he was doing to a student. She was booked for assaulting a police officer, which is clearly a "combative" thing to do. Do you think the officer who tackled her down and then climbed on top of her should also have the authority to inject her with a sedative at his discretion? Do you think that, in an environment where simply not following directions promptly to the full satisfaction of the arresting officer can result in being tased or even shot, law enforcement also needs to be able to sedate people whenever they find it appropriate?
> Do you think the officer who tackled her down and then climbed on top of her should also have the authority to inject her with a sedative at his discretion?
The person you're replying to is, assuming they're not lying, a medical professional.
> Do you think that, in an environment where simply not following directions promptly to the full satisfaction of the arresting officer can result in being tased or even shot
Are you suggesting that a person trying to bite folks is on equal legal footing with a college professor tapping an officer on the shoulder? In any case, sedatives are unquestionably less lethal than guns (and probably tasers, where Google suggests hundreds of people die in the US from being tased by the police each year). Putting aside whether the officer's discretion in such a situation is being wielded appropriately, sedation (by the numbers) is essentially never a worse option than what police have at their disposal already, no?
There's not a single instance in the article mentioning the EMS Medical Director being consulted in any of the 94 cases gone wrong (much less being held accountable). Multiple cases where the EMTs were pressured by the police, though.
It is impossible to consult with the medical director, or even medical control, on all cases so you rely on protocols and standing orders to perform your duty.
All jurisdictions have standards for sedation.
If any clinician feels pressured by the police to do something contrary to the standard they should call their ems supervisor— they’re paid to be mean to cops and charge nurses.
People have thought of all of this already.
I expect systems to be as perfect as I am, so “im-“.
