The solution to chess is almost certainly a draw, since this is what all top engine chess converges to. Otherwise you are completely correct: chess is unsolved and will likely never be solved.

Don’t most of these issues relate to the pill specifically? The pill releases far more hormones in the body than a UDI which to my understanding is safe for most women.

The establishment pushing against him is a good thing. Think about what happened the first time Trump announced his candidacy. Voters love to vote for candidates that the establishment hates.

I don’t want to talk ethics, but as a rule of thumb, winning a war is easier if you take out strategic targets than if you target civilians. Targeting civilians is what you do if your weapons aren’t precise enough to target tanks/planes etc.

Just to add that I have become quite allergic to the “pre-emptive strike”, “weapons of mass destruction “ justification for war. Have we learned nothing?

You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.

I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.

Of course, but such strict definitions only come about because smart people come up with examples like OP when you don’t add the full definition.

Counterexample: North and Southpole on Earth.

It’s OTC right? What’s stopping people from visiting multiple pharmacies?