If the threat is the Russian plane or ship will blow you to burning pieces if you don't, why wouldn't you? Proving a point that leaves you dead isn't usually the best course of action.
One of the big ones I remember from the last decade was the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017, where luckily nobody was killed. This isn't a sudden problem to brace for, it's a continuing problem to finally accept and address.
Charlie Kirk was not an elected public official, but he was definitely still political in a way that a lot of regular Americans are political. So even if it's less significant with regard to elected officials being targeted, it was political violence that regular people felt and could conceive of being targeted with, for similar reasons as Charlie. I believe that was what made his assassination resonate with people, much more than an elected official being assassinated does.
No. You are still your own independent person, even in a marriage. If your bonds of friendship are merely the result of you holding the same opinions, then you are not so much friends as you are common-goal acquaintances, such as two strangers meeting at a sports event where they are both rooting for the same team. If a change in your opinion is grounds for no longer being friends, such as the same strangers meeting at a sports event and realizing one of them "defected" to root for the other team, then it is clear you as a person had little to do with the friendship and it was more about convenience or selection bias.
With this in mind, most "friendships" on social media are driven by the ideas you align with, and it is a reason why the old idea of "cancel culture" can be subject to such whiplash. If you are only friends, followers, or mutuals with people who believe the same ideas as you, one of them expressing an idea you did not think they would have might lead you to distrust them - even though you don't know them as a person at all, but a "collection of ideas" you agree with.
You might be thinking of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image (https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/hubble-ultra-deep-fiel...). I believe it was the result of NASA saying "Let's look at what appears to be a completely dark spot in space, zoom in as far as we can, and see what's there."
We see stars in our galaxy because they are close enough to us that we see them as individual stars. Compare that to the Andromeda Galaxy, which is far enough away that without intense zoom, it looks like a single source of light. There are galaxies even farther away, which we cannot see with the naked eye at all, but zooming in on them like Hubble did means we eventually get enough resolution to see they are individual galaxies, unfathomably far away.
JWST being able to see infrared means we'll see galaxies that are so far away, their light is redshifted so we (and Hubble) cannot even see them at all.
With regards to your question about how to test the bubble hypothesis posted by parent, we would be limited by how variable our point of view can be. We can gather what data we can at one end of Earth's orbit, and then try to see from the opposite end and compare what we see, comparing data sets to see if certain galaxies or stars are in different positions. We already do some of this when dealing with gravitational lensing and I believe it's one of the primary ways we can detect black holes, as they bend light a lot.
That, and the unfortunate truth that if Firefox only exists because Google needs a fig leaf against monopoly charges, it hasn't proven its value in enough ways for it to stick around. I love Firefox, but the market in general has centralized on Chromium for a lot of reasons.
Philosophical reasons to exist are great, but philosophy doesn't pay the bills, it seems.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military. Currently, European leaders are discussing sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, but the UK has claimed they will only send troops if the US promises to provide a "backstop".
So a lot of the power of the President to direct foreign policy is because they essentially control the military and many other countries rely on the US military for a lot. On the other hand, if you anger the US, the President can decide to change tactics suddenly such as Obama increasing the use of drone strikes or Trump using NATO as a bargaining chip.
The US is still looked upon as the final say in military situations because it also has the largest military in both active combat forces and equipment.There is an expectation that the US will act as world police - I remember Obama catching grief over not intervening in Syria. All of this adds up to America being "the big stick" and has somewhat changed the Presidency. This is also why Isolationism vs Interventionism is such a heated debate.
If the demons control your body by abusing your brain and nerve impulses, it could be. Our bodies work through electrical signals and various neurotransmitters like serotonin, so an anti-psychotic that affects brain receptors could prevent such a "hotwiring".
Would it be any different than if aliens could beam signals to individual neurons to force you to do something? What about a skilled surgeon with an Arduino, or those seizure prevention circuits they can install?
Roblox Studio is a very powerful system, my 8 year old has played around with it to make simple maps and obbys. People have coded Call of Duty style games on Roblox (such as Frontlines) so it's pretty surprising how far you can stretch the engine.
