And for that reason, you can request asylum. But not for being conscripted.

"The Falklands are Argentinian" is code for "The economy is doing terrible".

Sure, but MAD has never actually been tested.

Suppose Russia drops a tactical nuclear warhead on Ukraine tomorrow. Will anyone start dropping nukes on Russia in response?

Suppose Russia starts a ground invasion of the Baltics; will France drop a nuke on them? Or would we just get another large-scale conventional war where neither side dares to touch their nukes?

in fact Einstein's 1905 paper was explicitly in response to Lorentz's paper.

No. Einstein stated in 1955 that he knew Lorentz's work only up to the 1895 Versuch before devising special relativity, and his 1905 paper cites nothing at all.

Source: Darrigol, "Can we trust Einstein's accounts of the genesis of special relativity?", https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0039368121000492. Also in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.09361.

As Bell concludes at the end of his 1964 paper, either quantum mechanics is wrong, or the states of particles cannot be Lorentz invariant.

Not what he wrote. The concluding paragraph reads: in a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics, there must be a mechanism whereby one device's setting influences a remote instrument, and such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant. The subject is hidden-variable completions, not quantum mechanics itself.

Source: https://journals.aps.org/ppf/abstract/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195 (the conclusion is Section VI of the PDF).

That directly renders special relativity non-viable.

Relativistic QFT is Lorentz invariant, reproduces every Bell violation, and provably cannot establish faster-than-light communication between observers. Without signaling, no frame-dependent ordering of measurements ever creates a causal paradox.

Source: Eberhard & Ross, Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 127 (1989), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00696109

the existence of the rest frame of the universe has been confirmed indirectly

The 2022 prize citation is for experiments with entangled photons establishing the violation of Bell inequalities, which rules out local hidden-variable models. The committee's document says nothing about a preferred frame, and your own mechanism guarantees no experiment could ever find one.

Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-4.pdf

a paper by Frauchiger and Renner in the journal Nature ... proved ... every major interpretation of quantum mechanics is logically inconsistent.

Wrong journal and wrong result. It's Nature Communications, and the theorem states that three assumptions cannot all hold: (Q) universal validity of the Born rule, (C) consistency across agents, and (S) single measurement outcomes. Any interpretation must violate at least one. Their own Table 4 sorts the escapes: collapse models and Bohmian mechanics drop (Q), Copenhagen-type views drop (C), many-worlds drops (S). No interpretation is shown to be inconsistent. The argument itself is also contested: Aaronson rejects the claim that there's any new problem with QM's logical consistency, and Bub has a paper-length analysis of what the result does and doesn't show.

Sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8, https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3975, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-021-00420-5

they instead claim that Bell's theorem rules out "local realism." The implication here is that you could deny locality, but you could also deny realism.

Whether "realism" is even a separate assumption is an open, published debate, which is the opposite of a taboo. Norsen argues your side (that "local realism" is a flawed phrase and locality alone carries the theorem) in Foundations of Physics. Wiseman argues that Bell's 1964 theorem needs both locality and determinism, while his 1976 theorem rests on local causality, in a mainstream journal special issue. Both sides publish freely.

Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607057 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0351

Bell did have Lorentzian sympathies, and a preferred foliation is one coherent response to non-locality. It hasn't caught on because nobody has integrated it cleanly with relativistic QFT and it posits structure that's unobservable in principle, not because of ideology.

Conscription is not considered grounds for granting asylum, not from any country. Israelis can't request asylum because they would be conscripted into the IDF either. Conscription is just the law of the land that applies to everyone in it, it doesn't target people specifically, regardless of any protected class like race, sexuality or political opinions.

Asylum would require something like political persecution, e.g. standing up to Putin and becoming a target of the FSB; that would be grounds for asylum.

Or they may have well not fully known what pronouns are preferred, and to avoid offending anyone chose the neutral, non-offensive "they", a universally accepted pronoun that could apply to anyone.

Regardless, you're getting offended over nothing because they is a preferred pronoun for Elliot, along with he.

Truthfully his "he/they" seems like when some trans people say that to accommodate cis people, not a genuine statement of identity.

This is pretty fucking disrespectful towards Elliot. Don't disrespect someone's preferred pronouns like that, that's even worse than your accusation.

Elliot's preferred pronouns are he/they. It's perfectly acceptable to use they to refer to him, as per his own stated preference. Please don't disrespect that.

He looks a bit like one of mine. He's called Silvestro (or "Silly" for short).

Otherwise it's just sparkling war.

Asphyxiation, when done correctly, can be pleasurable for the receiving party. You get a kind of "high" from it. But there's a technique to it to make sure it's as safe as possible.

Self-asphyxiation was a trend among schoolkids for a while as one of those "challenges". Got a few kids killed sadly.

This is due to some changes made that statcounter doesn't apply to their data properly. So statcounter is very unreliable atm.

Malaysian academic Dr Solehah Yaacob, who drew public scrutiny over claims that ancient Malays could fly

There's a difference between dissenting opinions and batshit insane ideas.