I'm as keen to wax poetic about the non-economic potential of technology as the next person, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking that was why the technology was developed in the first place.
Also, a military advantage is an economic one, there's no real difference between the concepts.
Art? Yes, of course! I have no clue what you're referring to with tech, though. Throughout history development of tech has almost always driven by seeking economic leverage. I'm sure there are exceptions but I can't think of any.
Not sure what you're referring to with science at all.
Tech for tech's sake helps nobody. Politics is a fact of nearly every facet of life—you can accept this and play the game or accept that you're in the backseat.
The worst people in the world already know this and run our industry. There's no reason we have to accept them.
This also sort of raises a red flag for the author—short term relationships weren't really a thing in the world of Austen, just prospective long-term relationships and essentially affairs.
This all may be true, but he still has a track record as an expansionist, as nationalist, as islamophobic, and as ethno-nationalist. He may not have presented much of a change in Russia's behavior the way the western press has implied he might have.
I think there are perfectly valid reasons to not like cigarette smoke, I just think that constantly harping over the "health" aspect rather than the "resolving the conflict of the smoke itself" aspect is not helpful.
Can we please god stop using AI like it's a meaningful word? This is really interesting technology; it's hamstrung by association with a predatory marketing term.
> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!?
I'm guessing you'd run into space constraints pretty quickly. For one large project a nuclear reactor is incredibly compact compared to most alternatives except maybe hydro.
Also, a military advantage is an economic one, there's no real difference between the concepts.