Well … Yes and no. Look at the war with iran. They have no control, no upper hand, no strong negotion position. (And I have very strong doubts on the big pool of educated)
They say they have a lot of nukes, the way Trump has acted regarding nukes suggests the someone let slip to him the arsenal is way lower than publicly reported. Also the DoE has been in the hands of cut and sell people for last the twelve years continuously. It’s not unlikely many nukes were taken offline to make their department look less wasteful.
Expense does not buy quality, hence the shortage of Patriot 3 missiles, and the failure of the US to protect Israel despite sinking literally the entirety of their military into just doing that for several months. They couldn’t even stop Iran. They had to expose top-secret sound-based kill technology just to capture the democratically elected leader of Venezula. They had to flee Afghanistan and are considering fleeing Iraq.
The US really, really doesn’t have a big pool of educated people. 54% of US adults are functionally illiterate by international standards, 21% are totally illiterate. The exceedingly few home-grown highly educated people have been taking external jobs more and more frequently for the last 30 years. First in Europe and Japan, now in Europe and China. They restrict the number of doctors allowed to graduate each year, so per capita they produce fewer doctors than Cuba, and per capita nearly every single European country produces more PhD graduates. But even without comparisons a new post-grad degree holder in the US is 33% likely to leave the US instead of working for a US company. Even beyond that test scores have been gradually and consistently declining across the US since 2003 with ‘no child left behind,’ so there’s not even a generation of geniuses to fill the spots.
PIAAC defines literacy as “the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential”
This is not the commonplace definition of literacy. Open any dictionary you want and you won’t find anything even close to this definition. (E.g. Cambridge Dictionary) Open any work on the history of language and writing and you won’t see this definition. Ask random people in the street what the word means and they will simply say it’s the ability to read and write. What the link provides is a secondary, far more specific meaning that was invented in a thoroughly literate society where the traditional meaning of illiteracy has become irrelevant because everyone is already literate.
So in order to get a ‘one up’ on the person you disagree with, you’re purposefully misreading a definition and insist the simpler definition is more correct because… you think it says something different?
You didn’t provide any definition when you made the first claim, there was no definition to misread. The meaning used by the vast majority of people ever is the default expected reading - which you did actually expect readers to use as well, since it would help in underscoring your ridiculous criticism. If you added the new (and vague and untestable and not used in many other countries) definition immediately in the initial comment, it would dampen the dramatic effect.
You can say the US won’t support europe anymore. But you can’t deny they are still a super power:
China becoming a superpower does not make the US less of a super power.
Well … Yes and no. Look at the war with iran. They have no control, no upper hand, no strong negotion position. (And I have very strong doubts on the big pool of educated)
They say they have a lot of nukes, the way Trump has acted regarding nukes suggests the someone let slip to him the arsenal is way lower than publicly reported. Also the DoE has been in the hands of cut and sell people for last the twelve years continuously. It’s not unlikely many nukes were taken offline to make their department look less wasteful.
Expense does not buy quality, hence the shortage of Patriot 3 missiles, and the failure of the US to protect Israel despite sinking literally the entirety of their military into just doing that for several months. They couldn’t even stop Iran. They had to expose top-secret sound-based kill technology just to capture the democratically elected leader of Venezula. They had to flee Afghanistan and are considering fleeing Iraq.
The US really, really doesn’t have a big pool of educated people. 54% of US adults are functionally illiterate by international standards, 21% are totally illiterate. The exceedingly few home-grown highly educated people have been taking external jobs more and more frequently for the last 30 years. First in Europe and Japan, now in Europe and China. They restrict the number of doctors allowed to graduate each year, so per capita they produce fewer doctors than Cuba, and per capita nearly every single European country produces more PhD graduates. But even without comparisons a new post-grad degree holder in the US is 33% likely to leave the US instead of working for a US company. Even beyond that test scores have been gradually and consistently declining across the US since 2003 with ‘no child left behind,’ so there’s not even a generation of geniuses to fill the spots.
It’s not nice to make things up and/or reinvent what words mean. No, 21% of Americans is not “totally illiterate”.
So you know more than the US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?
Really? Do you want to share your magical sources that magically change reality? Pretty please?
This is not the commonplace definition of literacy. Open any dictionary you want and you won’t find anything even close to this definition. (E.g. Cambridge Dictionary) Open any work on the history of language and writing and you won’t see this definition. Ask random people in the street what the word means and they will simply say it’s the ability to read and write. What the link provides is a secondary, far more specific meaning that was invented in a thoroughly literate society where the traditional meaning of illiteracy has become irrelevant because everyone is already literate.
So in order to get a ‘one up’ on the person you disagree with, you’re purposefully misreading a definition and insist the simpler definition is more correct because… you think it says something different?
I fear you might be a part of the problem.
You didn’t provide any definition when you made the first claim, there was no definition to misread. The meaning used by the vast majority of people ever is the default expected reading - which you did actually expect readers to use as well, since it would help in underscoring your ridiculous criticism. If you added the new (and vague and untestable and not used in many other countries) definition immediately in the initial comment, it would dampen the dramatic effect.