Having studied (and written) histories myself, this sounds like an accurate description of histories in general. We don't need to make everything an encyclopedia. Sometimes it's fun to follow a conversational review of a breadth of material without getting in to the weeds. Kurlansky often includes personal anecdotes and has a good sense of where to dwell. This is what I appreciate in a writer: character and tact.
The same can be said for, well, 101-level class attendees.
People love to declare themselves experts on things; thus: the Expert Fallacy ("I know a lot about repairing carburators; let me tell you what is wrong with self-driving cars...")
The cooperation of allies is more powerful than all of that, and the US is woodchipping their allies as fast as possible. Their power will disappear astonishingly quickly.
Maybe, but being close to the US is very valuable. Can't imagine every leader out there is going to hamstring their own economy to poopoo on whoever becomes president after Trump.
There’s just absolutely no comparison between one senile president who maintained our democracy and another senile president who loudly, proudly, and rapidly destroyed it.
“I would argue that…” is a weaker statement, because it ends with an implied “…but since I don’t care that much, I’m not ‘seriously’ arguing that.” It’s not at all equivalent to the strong statement “I argue that…”, which has no such qualifier.
Why cure yourself of useful conversational nuance?
I think I weakly disagree. Poker players have intuitive sense of the statistics of various hand types showing up, for instance, and that can be a useful clue as to which build types are promising.
>Poker players have intuitive sense of the statistics of various hand types showing up, for instance, and that can be a useful clue as to which build types are promising.
Maybe in the early rounds, but deck fixing (e.g. Hanged Man, Immolate, Trading Card, DNA, etc) quickly changes that. Especially when pushing for "secret" hands like the 5 of a kind, flush 5, or flush house.
> Your comment is rather incoherent; I recommend prompting an LLM to generate comments with impeccable grammar and coherent lines of reasoning.
It seems your reading comprehension has fallen below average. I recommend challenging your skills regularly by reading from a greater variety of sources. If you only eat junk food, even nutritious meals begin to taste bad, hm?
As long as you keep in mind that what you come away with are shallow, incomplete views of nuanced topics.
Unfortunately, many come away from these popular summaries believing 101-level knowledge makes them subject experts.
reply