The bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been heavily criticised right from the start, and from the top of the US government at that.

To reach that board state and have had the rook captured would require some really unhinged play, and given the rook is tilted differently to the captured pieces I assumed it was being moved

Its the only way to preserve the timeline.

I would rule the playground with my knowledge of Pokemon and distribute Mew to those whose dex languishes at 150.

White is currently moving the rook, a blunder, no matter where the rook is placed it brings the prediction to -4.x for Black.

It surprised me its still that bad given a couple of obvious moves actually tip the balance slightly into Blacks favour.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Social transactions aren’t the same as monetary transactions. I don’t know what you expected.

Studies on altruism are very interesting but almost no relationships are based purely on altruism from what I understand.

From a biological or evolutionary perspective, altruism is a behaviour that decreases the fitness or genetic contribution of one individual while increasing the fitness of another.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5456281/

I would need a lot more deeply personal information on your relationship and history to answer that for you.

If you genuinely consider what you have previously brought to the relationship and what you’re bringing today I’m sure you’ll find some answers.

I knew someone would bring up children to try and debunk that all relationships are transactional but this is actually extremely simple.

A child’s role is to grow, develop and learn from their parents and society. Very easy on their part as it’s basically all automatic for them.

A parent’s role is to protect, provide, nurture and support their child. All easy stuff to understand.

If a parent fails they will be judged extremely harshly by society and end up with a child that has behavioural problems.

Historically the driving desire to have lots of children was so that some would survive and be able to provide for you in your old age. Still somewhat relevant but far less so than historically.

Turns out pre-modern agriculture the work required to survive was hard on the body and basically doomed the elderly who didn’t have a younger generation to provide for them. So not a problem resulting from capitalism as it was different but present under feudal and tribal societies.

We’ve seen what happens when parents fail, such as a child having an extremely abusive and controlling mother is a strong predictor of psychopathy. Basically all the worst serial killers you’ve ever heard about had abusive mothers.

The only way for children to fail on their end of the transaction really is to die or be severely disabled. When they’re closer to being adults that dynamic changes and some people, both child and parent, have great difficulty ‘renegotiating’ the relationship.

Having children with severe disabilities is devastating and I won’t go into that right now as it’s a massive topic by itself.

Oh and I had a pretty good childhood and am on good terms with my parents but thanks for taking a pity swipe at me lol

The first step is to understand that all relationships are transactional. Not a single human relationship is unconditional.

You start by making yourself useful, pleasant and interesting to be around and people who understand and accept the “deal” will reciprocate and most of them will be reliable.

There are no guarantees so it’s also a little bit of a numbers game. More is better to a point… usually about a dozen close relationships is optimal.

It’s just a closer and more intimate version of the broader social contract. Break it and suffer. Maintain it, nurture it, and benefit.

Learn what you can, and are expected, to bring to a relationship (be it romantic or otherwise) and work on improving what you offer.

All human relationships and communities since the beginning of time have relied on this transactional nature of relationships.

Anyone who says otherwise is blindly naive or misunderstanding what any given individual can bring to a relationship.

What do you mean that’s boring? That’s all there is to it innit

Seems to be a euphemism for suffering.

And the point I’m making is that they’re doing it to filter out people who know and pay attention. Real simple stuff.