I say the same as I never really turned up to University, however I knew I wanted to be a programmer afterwards and people wouldn't speak to me without that Degree...
On a positive note: those Nukes are probably what has stood between many state v state wars which may have taken place over the past 60 years had the assured destruction not been there.
That's a difficult assumption to prove, and we have had extremely bloody conflicts nonetheless (Vietnam for once) during the Cold War even without the use of nukes.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a larger land war would've taken place, had there not been the threat of nuclear war limiting the cold war to a very localized region. I would prefer proxy wars over all out war, all said.
> assume that a larger land war would've taken place,
You seem to forget that wars are expensive, very expensive. The US was already running bankrupt before the end of WW2, nobody in any sane state of mind wants an all out war unless they can avoid to do so.
We emerged as the wealthiest nation because the rest of the civilised world had been reduced to rubble. It's really easy to have the best, most productive economy in the world when one's manufacturing base is untouched and one has suffered a relatively small injury to one's workforce.
Germans were starving to death in 1946; Brits were still rationing meat and food in 1954, and cheese for decades to come.
Wars are not in general good for the economy: they result in the destruction of capital and of labour.
I was merely replying to the parent comment, globally WWII was a disaster, economically the US profited massively, not just relative to the rest of the world and it could probably have carried on fighting the longest. For instance the war effort lead to the industrialization of a much larger part of the country than before and immigration of skilled labor towards the west coast.
As you said it did not suffer any damage to its industry and took over from Britain, France and Japan as the imperial power in the Middle East and Asia.
There have been plenty of conventional land wars in the following years with US involvement, the difference was that while WWII was fought to establish large American spheres of influence, the following wars were fought been to maintain the American empire.
It is pretty hard to quantify, but I'm confident that people in power thought that the net benefit of maintaining hegemony in South East Asia (Korean/Vietnam war) and the Middle East (financing Israel, the Iraq wars), outweighed the cost.
Please don't. If I follow one of those groups it's because I have an interest in that particular movie/film/book/sport/whatever. If your posts are no longer relevant I will unfollow you.
Really depends on the targeting. For a forum about a book, an affiliate link to by the book or an upcoming sequel makes perfect sense. Recommendations for other books seems pretty fair too. For example, an Ender's game discussion that references Honor Harrington isn't crazy.
Spam about cat litter is just spam.
But it can't be constantly off topic. finding the balance is delicate, and most people do a shitty job.
Buzzfeed's sponsored ads are pretty good for the Buzzfeed audience. I agree on the point yes, content links can be posted over and over as people get enojyment from them, posting products will soon lead to unfollowing, is why I'd like to find a good niche and something people want and build a community.
Seeing a city like that was so refreshing, it must be nice to live somewhere your attention isn't constantly pulled here and there, and where a sense of want is re-enforced every time you lift your head.
I can't see anything without signing up? How as a user should I know whether it's worth signing up for ? Or indeed what I am signing up for. A simple 'About' or 'Features' section is much needed IMHO.
Aside from this, once you're in it looks awesome. Like someone added all the great features that a project manager would want added to trello!
We had a features page before (actually, our homepage talked a lot about the features too), but we decided to simplify everything and just focus on our UVP - Roles and Permissions. But depending on the results and feedback we get we might just put the features page back!
The author seems to have contributed to New Scientist on the subject matter[1], therefore I'm hoping (and expecting) it to be the latter of your two possibilities.
Similarly, until very recently I was "senior" with 15 years.
At my company it actually means "senior", there are places I've worked where people have the senior title who would be multiple rungs lower on the ladder at my current company.
