Going by preponderance of adverts alone our era is defined by AI and gambling, which is going to look great to future historians

"how would the US react if Cuba was threatening to join a hostile alliance" is meant to be a gotcha on Ukraine that actually just gives the game away on what people believe about sovereignty

Means of production is too broad to define an individual life but obviously does define the historical movement of groups (this seems to me to be the heart of dialectics)

The jump immediately from "Britain's self mythologising is incorrect" to "Britain must have some uniquely malign role to play in world affairs" is fascinating, like its impossible for the UK to be just another country where some stuff happened that doesn't really prove anyone's point about anything

The overcorrection is usually because people desperately want history to have a moral to it. You get it a lot with slavery, like people will tell you about the Arab slave trade as if teaching the British slave trade was only there to make some point about Britain being Good or Bad

It seems ill-advised for a nation that has rebellion against a Greek empire as one of its founding myths to adopt Greek imperialism as a model

I just can't fathom it, there's such a lack of depth

General Giap lived long enough to both command a WWII campaign against Japan and have opinions on the first seasons of Game of Thrones

Other than "do you want to spend time getting really good at front-facing video" I don't know what questions a comms director at this level can usefully pose

I'm guessing I don't want to know the answer, but in this proposed 1-state Palestine, what is meant to happen when the Israeli citizens vote for secession

"Your comms strategy is simply whatever easily recognisable character archetypes you can assemble on your frontbench" is underrated