I agree that they’ll be criticized either way, though it is debatable which would have the worst outcome.

That being said, the US was a major driving force for the creation of Israel, has armed and funded them since, and has protected Israel in the Security Council preventing any international check on their actions . So, most certainly, it was not the US’s problem to begin with, but given US foreign policy for the past 70 years it is inextricably linked to the problem now.

I guess in katakana “gorogoro” would be ゴロゴロ, which when written vertically in two lines would look vaguely like 8/8? Just guessing…

Ah I see, thanks for the correction! (It also kind of demonstrates the problems I have with my own language :P)

My language is diglossic - it has a written form and a spoken form that are very different to each other. It’s quite difficult to understand the written form if you’ve only grown up speaking and listening to the language, as the written form is essentially the language as spoken in the 1600s.

To compare it to English, it would be like saying “Where are you?” to someone over the phone, but then having to send them “Wherefore art thou?” as a text.

I agree most of them do have a hard ‘T’, but “talwar” (I’m guessing this is the word you’re referring to) is pronounced with a “th”. Probably the words for “firecracker” (pataka) or “holiday” (chuttee) are more representative.

It has a lot to do with AI. Their systems use a lot of deep learning etc to recognize agents/obstacles on the road (perception), to infer how the agents will move in the future (prediction), and to generate trajectories for their car (motion planning). It definitely isn’t Artificial General Intelligence, but it is most certainly AI.

If by “brought about positive changes”, you mean that it’s allowed colonial powers to enrich themselves enormously while draining their colonies of wealth, leaving millions to starve and destabilizing regions for generations, then yes perhaps you’re right. The argument you used could be applied in exactly the same way to justify slavery. The positive changes here always favour the oppressor, never the oppressed.