You don't leave the country when you have tens of thousands of military troops still on land with major military equipment stationed there. The US never left Japan and certainly never left Germany.
Given what it costs to station troops outside the country (including an aircraft carrier with its air wing), there has to be a strong reason to keep them there for 70+ years. And it's not because we needed to maintain an occupying force [0] - it was to have bases with pre-positioned equipment near likely foes where troops could be quickly sent and move-out.
The REFORGER exercises [1] went on for nearly 30 years, testing the ability to rapidly move troops to Germany in the event of a Soviet attack. Not only was this expensive in monetary terms, it was expensive in human lives - each year people died from various causes associated with being around heavy equipment. Such as sleeping under vehicles that would roll over them in the night. Or crossing rail lines with their antenna still up and getting electrocuted.
The US didn't do this for any imperial reasons. It was to keep commitments made to those governments in the post-war years.
[0] Disclaimers: Dad crossed into Germany at the Remagen bridge before it fell, and I was stationed in Germany during the Cold War.
I'm not even claiming that. The US has clear strategic reasons to be positioned in many places around the world (like at Okinawa, for example). And Japanese people, despite wanting these troops out, are not going to see them leave anytime soon. So Japan has about no say in it.
> The US never left Japan and certainly never left Germany.
It left the the running of their governments. The US military is/was not needed to keep order and prevent a collapse of civil society in either of those two countries. Contra Afghanistan.
Yes! Your warehouse would have to be a cleanroom (someone left a can of soda? Your robot just smashed through a shelf when it tried to step on it)
In general, I'm an AI researcher and an AI skeptic. After 10 years in robotics, I'm learning that the Human Is Cheaper and where Human Is Expensive, we prefer toasters, not terminators. (just enough hard-coded / hard-wired adaptivity to get by with tons of supervision)
At which point you're back to an automated assembly line which needs very little dynamics or intelligence. The whole point of developing such advanced robots is so that you don't need to worry as much about that can on the floor.
When reading the article, I was surprised to not see the other studies mentioned alongside the strict survival results. In developed/industrialized countries, the number of years a child has an involved father predicts their future income, even after controlling for education level, total family income, etc. Of course, these are in environments where survival is not exactly a close call.
Edit to add: I don't know if the results were able to be replicated in non-WEIRD societies.
Fathers who are soldiers away on deployment who can only see their newborn over zoom also have the dip. But only if they've been closely tracking the pregnancy and birth. Apparently the dip is not observed in fathers who are deployed soldiers who are not involved/invested.
Jobs in health care, recreation and hospitality report the highest level of job openings, relative to employment. Many of these involve plenty of person-to-person contact, making their workers especially vulnerable to infection (a study from California earlier this year found that cooks were most at risk from dying of covid-19). By contrast, in industries where maintaining social distancing or being outside is often easier, labour shortages are less of an issue. The number of job openings per employee in the construction industry is lower today than it was before the pandemic.
Those are also the industries that unceremoniously dumped a large portion of their workers a year ago. Many of those workers undoubtedly moved to other industries and now that they have gone to the trouble of switching, they aren't going to switch back without getting a much sweeter deal.
I realize it doesn't have English subtitles, so I'll summarize some highlights of what's in there:
* interviews with scientists and engineers working on the project
* trajectory of the spacecraft and lots of talk about the challenges of reducing velocity for landing
* historical overview and context for why Mars exploration is important for science
* what to expect in the future landing and when it'll happen
It's pretty similar to video programs that NASA produces. Not sure what information you're expecting that isn't out there, but I think you're attributing to secrecy what is more easily attributable to people not translating open public reports into English.
Here's a technical review of the (engineering, not science) imaging system for Perseverance, published in November 2000 before a touchdown in February 2021:
My dad sends me articles about it on WeChat all the time, but I have difficulty reading it since my Chinese reading comprehension is barely at a 3rd grade level. They do make a big deal about it and it gets lots of coverage.
I'm literate enough to read the entertainment section of a newspaper, and get a perfect score on the SAT 2 Chinese language test in the US. Technically, I wouldn't really be considered literate for an adult though.
When I came to the US at 4.5 years old, my mom brought with us some textbooks, enough for kindergarten through 3rd grade. I'm mostly self taught with help from my mom.
I more or less speak like an adult, but if I'm asked to read anything more complex (e.g., bank documents, geopolitics news), I'm completely lost.
Interesting. I can never imagine a grading system for chinese as a native speaker so got intrigued. Having done language tests for English when I was a student but can't imagine the other way around. Will look up for more. Thanks
> These numbers dovetail with a number of studies showing a similar level of classification looking at whole brain data. By applying a multivariate analysis of the whole brain, researchers are now able to classify whether a brain is male or female with 77%-93% accuracy (see here, here, here, here, and here). In fact, some recent studies using the most sophisticated techniques have consistently found greater than 90% accuracy rates looking at whole brain data (see here, here, and here). While this level of prediction is definitely not perfect-- and by no means do those findings justify individual stereotyping or discrimination-- that's really high accuracy as far science goes [7].
What's really interesting to me is if it's feasible to conduct a large scale study on transgender people to see what their clustering is like, statistically, with respect to personality. And whether that changes before or after a medical treatment, such as taking hormones.
While the comment may seem off-topic, geopolitics dont happen in a vacuum. You move chess pieces over to one side and you create spaces for your opponents.
It depends on which data points you pick.