You are very welcome glad to help. I worked a few years in investment banking, M&A and venture capital, feel free to ask any other questions you have on this.

I appreciate everyone’s responses in this thread but this was very explicit and thus helpful about how it turns into cash. Thank you!

It's the international relations version of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". So as long as Americans aren't pulling the trigger the international community let's it slide. Actual declared war between Russia and the USA would trigger treaties that trigger treaties.. etc. similar to what started WWI with the killing of the Arch Duke.

[deleted]

If Ukraine had invaded Russia and the US was supplying them with arms, I could see that argument. The bottom line is that Ukraine is defending their territorial sovereignty. Russians would not be killed by US or other foreign arms right now if Putin would get the hell out of Ukraine. You can make whatever argument you want about proxy wars or whatever, but at no point was Ukraine or NATO threatening to invade Russia.

I'm sick and tired of this stupid gaslighting. Putin might be able to piss on Russians' heads and tell them it's raining, but the rest of the world (largely) sees through this.

Most countries get equipment from other countries. It's pretty unusual to make all your own equipment.

That's why you chug a mixture of baking soda water solution and yeast to get the maximum amount of gaseous CO2 release

Wars often provoke other nations to support one side or the other, suppliers may be regarded as hostile to one nation or friendly to another which can provoke a nation to instigate sanctions on nations, but while in a war the last thing they need is to fight and lose on another front.

>The Taliban did the same to Al Quaeda and the US definitely did consider material support an act of war, and retaliated in kind.

That is not exactly what happened. The US demanded that the Taliban movement would extradite Osama bin Laden and other suspected terrorists. They also demanded that Al Quaeda bases and training camps should be shut down. That did not happen and the result was the invasion.

If they would have done that I doubt there would have been in invasion

The West isn't sending its soldiers onto a battlefield. They're giving equipment —in many cases older equipment— to a country facing invasion and an existential thread to its sovereignty that is asking desperately for aid. The soldiers using those weapons are members of the Ukrainian armed forces.

When the US armed the Mujaheddin in the 1980s to fight the Soviets, that wasn't Americans shooting at Russians.

When the Soviets and Chinese armed the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in the 1960s and 1970s, that wasn't Russians and Chinese soldiers shooting at Americans and South Vietnamese.

When the Soviets armed the North Koreas, that wasn't (officially) Russians shooting at the UN forces, even though it was an open secret some of the MiGs were being flown by Russian pilots.

When the Americans did Lendlease and Destroyers-for-Bases in 1939 and 1940, that wasn't the United States entering a shooting war with Germany.

Now things may continue to escalate, and maybe the West does end up becoming active participants in the Ukraine War, but if the Russians think that line has been crossed, they haven't seen anything yet. A NATO attack with modern equipment and modern training used by fresh troops is not what the Russians are dealing with at the moment, and based on the first year of the war, I doubt very much they could deal with it.

This is essentially the latest in a series of proxy wars we’ve been fighting with Russia since the 40’s. It’s not that we don’t all know what’s really happening, it’s that no one wants to be the one to officially start world war 3–which is what will happen if open war between USA and Russia happens.

Fighting a war on multiple fronts is bad, like if it happens you're probably going to lose bad

Its not considered going to war because considering it going to war is worse for the opponent

If you're Germany (or Russia) and the US is supplying weapons to the UK (or Ukraine) and you decide "that means war!" then congrats, you've overcome America's isolationism and you're now fighting yet another enemy who will commit significantly more weapons and manpower to the fight and speed up your demise. Oh, and its an opponent who had enough economic might they had military equipment to spare

Basically, its not considered going to war because that doesn't help the person who isn't receiving the weapons

As both a hobbyist baker and brewer, I can confirm that in (carelessly excessive) large quantities, active yeast can produce alarming amounts of gas and small quantities of alcohol in your system.

Don’t eat uncooked yeasted dough or drink actively fermenting beer and you shouldn’t ever run into that problem.

It’s different because Russia doesn’t want to declare war on the US.

That’s the only distinction.

The Taliban did the same to Al Quaeda and the US definitely did consider material support an act of war, and retaliated in kind.

But they did so from a position of vast military strength. Russia will make the same accusations today about material support to their enemies, but they won’t act on it because they can’t afford to fight that fight.

Let’s use the war in Ukraine as an example, Russia knows that the west is supplying massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine but Russia can’t really do anything about it, as it stands they’re already struggling to win a war on there doorstep so in their mind the best they can hope for is weapons and not actual troops. Basically Russia is “fine” with the weapons because alternative is that the west brings in troops on top of it which almost certainly ensures russias defeat

It's different because it is. There's no simpler way to put it.

Using Ukraine as an example, Russia may claim (that is, official agents of the state speaking in their capacity as an agent of the state) may claim that countries who have donated equipment are active participants in the War in Ukraine.

That's it. They may claim that. They may claim whatever they wish to. They might attack German, American, Polish, or other militaries directly (as one would expect following such a claim), but they won't because they don't want Germany, America, Poland or anyone else to actually join the fight.

Also, we (lots of countries) sell weapons internationally. Historically, this is not considered the same as participating in the conflicts of the buying country.

Did Henry Ford go to war with the USA after supplying the Nazis?

Yeah, you can get auto-brewery syndrome, and get drunk just by eating carbs.

Actually, it's very rare and caused by other issues, because a well-functioning digestive system kills yeast cells.

I feel like the harsh acids in your stomach would disrupt the fermentation process. Plus fermentation takes time and it’s not the same as distillation, but anyway it doesn’t happen overnight it takes some time.

Equity investors only get returns through selling shares or dividends. As an early investor you prefer the company reinvest all profits (if any) into growing the business. Therefore, your return ONLY comes from selling shares. Angels tend to be wealthy and experienced investors. This allows them to be patient with their investments.

Early investors see the potential for a company before others. Most of its value lies in the future and its not tested yet. Products have to be made, code has to be written, employees hired, distribution deals signed, supply chains made, etc.

Angel investing is akin to flipping homes, you buy cheap homes, renovate them and then sell for a profit. You won't see cash until you sell the property.

As the company grows and gains more experience, more investors become interested and want a piece of the pie. The early investor could sell shares at this point, getting bought out, but they lose out on future earnings.

Angels are looking for returns multiples higher than their investment.

Why? Most startups fail.

If you have ten portfolio companies, chances are 7 will fail, 2 net a decent return and 1 becomes a hit.

Angel investors have to be willing to take huge risks and able to absorb losses.

Generally no, baking kills yeast. What's in there when we eat it is almost certainly dead.

Even if it weren't, there's no way for the yeast to get into our blood, the worst they can do is eat the sugars in your stomach. Which they can totally do...don't eat a lot of live yeast, for this reason.

Edit:typo

Typically, no. The environment in the stomach is far too hostile to yeast to allow for the time required to ferment.

That said, there is a condition known as Auto-brewery syndrome where the stomach does not kill off the yeast fast enough and they do ferment some of the sugars, producing alcohol.

Even in English, it's paedophile in BE. Only Americans f***ed it up.

Wait....I thought we were talking about bikes....as in bi, or di (meaning 2).

Technically speaking, they could be IN-to me......ok I'm out.

Yes we can, hold my water!