You absolutely need to as early as possible for a massive advantage. Pick 3 for white and 3 for black. Look for books, speak ideally to your local chess club.

I did that because the answer didn't make sense as it is an issue I just acknowledged.

You imply I think Wikipedia is per default unbiased and all truthful which it isn't and I stated clearly otherwise with "quite difficult to be neutral". So I am not sure where the misunderstanding comes from.

Bad rep for going down the personal route in a discussion.

Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.

From Wikipedia. They didn't send the message war is bad for your health like some insurance disclaimer. The selective content tries to induce fear through the incursion into Kursk and for obvious reasons would have never shown the tense situation after the fall of Avdiivka with regular territorial losses in that area. Presentation of dead soldiers is aimed at inducing an emotional response. The intent is and was foremost to demoralize the enemy. I don't think it's reprehensible in any way. Declaring a few cuts as the truth, when you could have shown the opposite with Avdiivka, should tell you that's naive. Call it what is, a Ukrainian military high jacking of Russian TV.

Your example tries to put science into this and the issue we talk about is a war between two countries. Selectively showing information is scientifically inaccurate for history and social science. Science is a way of course to find the truth in a way, but a process of better descriptions of reality.

And so is naming this the "truth about war".

It is because people think they are on the right side of politics so much, that whatever they say or do, can't be criticized to the slightest extent. I dislike the declaration of "truth" in wartime quite a lot as it doesn't seem to be sensible. The black-white thinking is an absolute cancer in this internet society as you can tell by the amount of comments thinking I would side with Russia when criticizing the wording of the article, not even the Ukrainian action itself.

They just assume whatever statement isn't in full accord with them, means you are in full accord with the extreme opposite end of whatever spectrum. I highly advise to avoid political movements and friend groups with such extreme tendencies which favor shouting down over any discussion as they will circle jerk themselves into pure insanity.

At no point I stated Russia's news are trustworthy. Declaring a propaganda TV interception as if it is just reading out a Wikipedia article is wild to say the least. Ukrainian official statements can't be taken for granted, at some point in the Kursk incursion the independently verified territorial gains were at about 800 sq. km. vs claimed 1200. Neither is the cultural and media market truly open, as it is wartime and the Russian Orthodox Church is too close to the government to be allowed to operate anymore. Also getting journalistic permits for the Ukrainian frontlines is nowadays more impossible than ever before in this war.

As I described this isn't the content.

Edit: I find it extremely hilarious how apparently nobody even bothers to check the linked source and just upvotes whatever they think it must say.

This isn't what I said. I associate with truth in such a context as a documentary-Wikipedia style of delivery and already that is quite difficult to do neutral, as sources and claims will diverge, e. g. about losses.

Fifth day burning. Firetrucks just noped out of there.

Truth being the Ukraine's Ministry of Defense's side of the conflict?

Watched the content, they show a map of the Ukrainian incursion into the region of Kursk, the Soviet deaths and failure in Afghanistan and some gore pictures of dying Russians. Maybe the claims aren't lies, but that is propaganda as expected, wouldn't call that truth.

I mean the current situation of losses versus territorial change is quite questionable for both sides.

Not a big fan of these victorious memes when it is more than clear that this is just a really bloody war for minor territory movement at this point. The initial moments of gigantic advances are less and less likely with more entrenchment.

The New York Times, that's why. It's a paper which drastically lost credibility.

Isn't fiber a key component of vegetables which are naturally calory poor?

External sound cards have the advantage of less electrical interference, but usually the internal ones have external power not coming from the PCIe slot so it isn't a big problem. Asus left the market leaving you with good old Creative Sound Blaster again. Choose whatever your budget allows, the two upper tier ones just differ in accessories, but that might have changed. And AV receivers the same, I am not the up to date audio guy what is a good deal. Just try to stay >120 dB SNR on sound cards for high end.

Don't search for computer speakers, just look for normal speakers on which I can't help out too much on. Unless you want to invest into an expensive sound card, you probably should go for an AV-Receiver which transmits the audio through HDMI as this will give you the maximum quality depending on the supported formats. I have a sound card -> old school amplifier -> speaker setup. Basically it is your choice where the digital to analogue transformation happens, whether through a receiver or sound card. A sound card does have the massive advantage of providing virtual headphone surround sound (yes on stereo headphones, and no, this is really working) which receivers typically don't have, because reasons and it will provide you with a massive immersion boost. And no onboard sound is not comparable, even the best one is a clear step down.

This looks like I-No from Guilty Gear (Fighting Game).