You're being obtuse about the definition of "go to war". If they invade your country and you fight back you're still going to war.
This is slightly extreme. Go tell Europeans in the late 30s and early 40s that there's no justification for going to war against Germany. There are always exceptions.
It forces replayability if you're the kind of person who needs to do everything.
It's absolutely enjoyable. The choices feel like they have a lot of weight. At the end of the day it's just a video game, so you just have to pick a choice and see what happens. You can also save scum if you're super unhappy with an outcome, but I try to avoid that.
There are absolutely irreparable consequences to your actions in this game. You have to "plan ahead" in the sense that you have to be sure what path you want to go down because other paths will become closed or non-existent. It also is sometimes not obvious which path makes the most sense to take, which is by design.
Without trying to spoil anything, I made a mistake with one of my characters which caused them to permanently leave the group and I can't get them back.
I have similar nightsweat problems, so I did something close to this once: https://www.wikihow.com/Clean-a-Bed-with-Baking-Soda
If you Google "clean mattress with baking soda" you'll find a bunch of similar recipes. Lots suggest using essential oils, which I didn't use.
The results were decent when I did it. Definitely de-funkified the mattress a bit, and removed some of the stains. It was hardly like new, but it was definitely better than before.
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow somebody good.
My wife and I gave up after two episodes. Neither of us have read the books or played the games. We just think the show sucks.
This is a microcosm of how employment works in the world at large.
You aren't paid based upon how difficult your job is, nor are you paid strictly based on how much value you add. You're paid based on a function of value added, AND how replaceable you are. Essentially supply vs demand. If your job is hard and you add a ton of value, but you're easily replaceable, then you won't make much money. There's just too much supply. It doesn't matter that RBs are important if you can just throw a rock and hit someone who can fill the role.
Likewise if you're difficult to replace, but don't add a ton of value you also won't make a lot of money. My best guess for an example of this would be long snappers.
I think this is terrible advice for most people. You only need to spend like an hour in the airport to avoid missing a flight. Most people don't fly often enough to get much actual gain from pushing this boundary. The only person I knew who would push the envelope like this was someone who flew every week for work. That makes sense to me, because you're saving two hours every week for years. If you're only flying a few times a year just pack a book and ensure you make your flight on time.
I thought it was entirely fine and enjoyable as a popcorn, action movie. But other than that I don't really understand why it deserves any awards.
Also what is the distinction between "movie" and "television movie"? That line seems pretty blurred in a world of streaming.
I think the butterfly effect is much more interesting when you think about incredibly far reaching effects that are essentially impossible to predict. Someone running late and getting into an accident might actually be relatively easy to predict.
Instead: someone reading this post is running late. Because of this a different car following behind them gets caught at a red light they shouldn't have gotten caught at. As they hit the brakes for that light, their passenger lurches forward and accidentally sends a nonsensical text to their friend. Their friend reads that nonsense text, and in their confusion spills their coffee on the floor. A person walking by slips on the coffee, hits their head, and dies.
The person running late just killed a person miles away, and they have zero idea that it even happened.
Maybe a stupid question, but does it count if he wasn't there for the game? A player wouldn't get credit for a win if they didn't play, so should the manager get credit for the win if he wasn't managing the game?