Stupidity I would get, let alone well-reasoned disagreement. But bad faith confuses me. However selfish, don't these people want to live too? I really don't understand, Professor Quirrel.

The "they are playing a game" thing - some examples, please? 

Was cold war NATO willing to retaliate "in full force" against an attack on a non-member?

If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in a limited theater, It seems to me that, given the West's reticence, it may seem reasonable to expect from it a similarly limited, local retaliation. 

Even if it's not a certainty, Putin may be weighing such risks against the risk of what will happen to him if he is ousted from power (this idea speaks to me because it's simple, mundane fear, it does not require Putin being about to keel over and looking for a dramatic end). Die the death of a deposed tsar = die in nuclear war, you're dead either way. Maybe the latter is even better, as it'll be more impersonal. As long as you're selfish and amoral (which Putin obviously is), the fact that this is "bad for Russia" (let alone the world) won't stop him.

Kamil Kazani proposed that Putin may be planning to use nukes as a face-saving gesture (in the eyes of Russian public opinion, not yours, you don't matter to him no matter how absurd you think he's being), since it's not humiliating to lose to a retaliatory strike from powerful America, but losing to "inferior" Ukraine certainly is.

Thoughts on this?

What if there was an asteroid rushing toward Earth, and box A contained an asteroid deflector that worked 10% of the time, and box B might contain an asteroid deflector that worked 100% of the time?

I'd change that to 95%, because if B contains a 100% deflector, A adds nothing and there's no dilemma.

Finally got around to it, and it's great. The ending was exactly what it should be.

Is this against spaced repetition as such, or against flash cards?

For me the value of Anki (or my own custom program that I wrote a while back) is as a review-scheduler, not as a quizzer.

Well crap.

I guess that when I thought "religion", I thought "system of worship", not "system of belief". To me the a religion would be "true" if it accurately responded to a demand for worship or obedience or such. If the creators of the Universe have no preferences over our actions, then at most you could have a, well, description of them, but not much of a religion thus defined. Discovering such beings would not make me a religious person.

Of course now that I thought of it explicitely, I realize this is a rather narrow definition.

Wait, why? If God existed, I'd expect the true religion to be among actually existing ones.

Load More