>Rationality taken to its ultimate logical conclusion is nihilism, and the only escape is irrational hope.

I disagree. Consider this example:

If I see clouds gathering and droplets on the ground, I can rationally claim that "It is going to rain" (putting probability calculus and wild cards aside for a moment). If I would say "It is absolutely not going to rain and it will be sunny" you can see that one of these claims is more rational than the other.

If I see governments taking action against climate change, trying to prevent nuclear proliferation and working towards a stable world I could rationally claim that "We can have hope things will improve in the future".

However, if there is really no basis for such hope, than saying that "We can have hope things will turn out okay" is honestly just a baseless claim and a similar type of religious thinking, as handing your life over to the lord because he has a plan that will always turn out alright (which is a perfect example of a baseless claim, however edgy it might sound).

Not really, you can provide a basis for most claims, or grounds on which you form a judgment. I feel like baseless hope ultimately collapses into some form of religious thinking, where you expect things to go well because you just believe it will happen, with no good reason.

Ok, but there must be some rational basis for this hope, otherwise, it just becomes religion. Honestly, this article just feels like a bit of abstract concepts, saying that we should have hope just 'because'.

>Maybe I haven’t read enough Epicurean philosophy, but it does seem to me that it’s got a kind of paternalistic naivety regarding poverty you see in a lot of works by rich people which counsel moderation - they’re just sort of assuming the idyllic simple life of the commoners and imagining it must be nice to not have so many demands on your time and resources, without really understanding the experience of poverty or deprivation.

This seems to be my main gripe with people trying to resurrect ancient schools of philosophy to help navigate modern life. They seem to imply that there is some trans-historical (transcendental even) nature of things, while forgetting that Epicurean philosophy was essentially created by someone of unimaginable privilege in the ancient world. As such, it reflects the character of the ancient world and society, and simply applying it 1:1 to modern solutions isn't a very viable solution to problems.

Lol no it could not 'be ok'. These things are banned for a reason, just like a whole bunch of other weaponry. If you make exceptions like this you might as well say this for any other type of weaponry.

AND THEN THEY BURIED HER ONE EVENING 1945

In addition, its very clear that the economy will continue going to shit, causing further social distress and the war in Ukraine will only continue to escalate, potentially threatening the world with a global conflict using weapons of mass destruction. People have practically zero advocacy in these issues.

Show more gratitude? Lmao for what, and more importantly, to whom?

Make it two years, with no end in sight.

There's only so much you can do when all your comms are out, alongside with basic necessities like water and heating in winter.

Also I don't know why I'm getting down voted, this is literally modern warfare 101, I'm rooting for the Ukrainians obviously, but if Russia significantly cripples their power grid Ukraine is in for a whole lot of trouble.

Honestly this is very, very bad for Ukraine and might be a tipping point in the conflict. When you siginificantly damage or destroy the power grid it's prett ymuch voer for the opposing side, hence why the US first sent missiel strikes on Iraqi power grid before the invasion.

Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus, most of everyday use of language can't be verified this way as it's not based on assertions (on the contrary, standard assertions which can be logically verified are just a tiny part of everyday use of language).