Separately, land grabs are not necessarily economically bad. The land being grabbed gets into productive use fast, and the grabber is hardly going to get all the resulting value. Especially not when the monopoly is temporary, as with a patent.

...at least, until they accumulate enough stocks to retire on.

...however, for each one that retires and cannot be replaced due to the no-upcoming-juniors problem, evidently, the value of the companies they own goes down. So they won't be able to retire, or at least not all of them. So there's no problem!

Compare the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2: Germany was trying to destroy merchant shipping faster than the Allies could build it, and failed; not because the subs were hunted down (though they were) but because the US refocused a humongous amount of industrial policy on building Liberty ships in a matter of days per hull. That was a massive national mobilisation, it would have been impossible to do so for more than a handful of capital plants, and it certainly wasn't going to be maintained in peacetime.

Edit to add: Though to argue a bit against my own point, satellites are perhaps uniquely vulnerable, even to nonstate actors. Lasers get better all the time and a satellite inherently needs to pass over other countries to do its job. Much easier targets than, say, electrical grids which can be defended by the internal-security garrison.

But that aside, as noted upthread, it doesn't actually require an amendment, it just requires the existing Congresscritters to do their dang jobs. Not holding my breath.

Aside from all questions about how such an agreement is to be enforced once you no longer have the money but the invaders still have their weapons, the article shows very clearly that this is not true. Early states are seriously cash-strapped, and rarely pay their armies in easily portable goods. They can "afford" to raise armies consisting of soldiers who bring their own weapons and, by-and-large, their own food. That does not make for good tribute and so, in fact, they cannot afford to pay off an invader.

One tiny UI nitpick: I found the squares' hitboxes to be unintuitively small, requiring more-than-expected precision to get Chazz to land in the square I wanted. (I was initially confused about whether I was making an illegal move.) You might want to either increase the size of the squares, or make the "this square is the target" indicator more obvious.

They do if you cherry-pick your economies, starting points, definitions of "capital" and "growth", and cutoff points, yes.

> A Minsky program that adds register A into register B looks like:

> 1. DEC A; if A == 0 goto 3 else goto 2

> 2. INC B; goto 1

> 3. HALT

If A initially equals 1 it will be decremented and hit zero; the conditional triggers, and the program halts without ever incrementing B.

...which suggests that Jira is a Turing tarpit in which even the simplest programs are immensely difficult to implement correctly. Who knew?

> Politically, [Churchill] is a Liberal-Unionist, and he has held office as Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and for Home Affairs.

This is a weird selection for a 1930s knowledge cutoff, if that's what's intended. Churchill was elected from Manchester North West in 1906, was Undersecretary for Colonies in the government that resulted, and more to the point held the posts of First Lord of the Admiralty and then Minister of Munitions during WWI. There's no time at which he would have been both a current Member for Oldham and a past Undersecretary for Colonies.