Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
How many planes did the Houthis manage to shoot down due to this “failure of OPSEC”? Zero. Therefore, the level of OPSEC that you want them to deploy is evidently unnecessary. OPSEC is not reducing military casualties; all it’s doing is giving “security personnel” a paycheck, and conferring no actual military advantage.
This is OPSEC’s “The emperor has no clothes” moment. All OPSEC’s recommendations were disregarded, and nothing bad happened. This proves that OPSEC is stupid, not that its violators are stupid.
I would also like to point out that anyone who condemns this “security breach” without in the same breath condemning Hillary’s e-mail server is double-standards-ing HARD. It’s OK when Dems do it?
Obviously it would be a terrible precedent in such agencies to say 'actually you can discuss your work if you, as an individual employee, decide on a random ad hoc basis that its probably fine this time'.
Can you elaborate? Because I think it unironically would be perfectly fine.
Better that everyone know USG’s secrets than I have to pay taxes to keep them under wraps.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
at that time UK was not bombing Russia
I don’t really see how assassinating Palestinians overseas becomes more palatable if you’re also gunning them down by the thousands with ground infantry.
Or is this a “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic” thing?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
it's basically guaranteed that foreign adversaries have access to much of that information.
“Basically” seems to be doing a tremendous amount of work in this sentence. You’re constructing an entire catastrophic narrative from one piece of evidence where nothing catastrophic happened. Here’s an alternative take that fits the evidence just as well: when they’re discussing adversaries who have more hacking capability than stone-age Yemenis, they stick to more secure channels.
If this had been discussing China or Israel I would be more sympathetic to your concerns, but it’s bombing a group of people who have never seen a computer in their lives, not bombing 1337 h4X0rz. The Pareto frontier of convenience vs. security is placed in a very different location when Yemen is your foe vs. when China is your foe.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
I agree with you, but by corollary it’s hard to claim that an unsuccessful assassination attempt is a somethingburger.
As I said, it was devil’s advocacy. I agree that one should be required to reap what they’ve sown, and if she didn’t want a baby, she should have kept it in her pants.
In non-devils-advocacy, I think that the negative externalities of an unwanted child and a resentful mother are sufficiently bad for society that my desire to profit society exceeds my desire to force people to eat their just desserts, so on balance I come down grudgingly pro-choice in the end. And I wouldn’t prosecute doctor or mother for straight-up infanticide, let alone late-term abortion. The UK’s new legislation moves us closer to that.
I am reluctant to laud it though, because it’s pretty transparent that British lawmakers’ motivations are, as @Southkraut speculates, “Women can do no wrong”, which means we have good law (or at least lesser-evil law) for bad motives.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
25d ago
First of all: It's fun
Came here to post this. Arguing online is entertaining. I possibly spent too much time in high school debate club as a teen
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
6mo ago
My own personal preference is a complete meritocracy. If that results in a 55% Asian, 40% white, 5% other split, so be it. Nothing else seems fair to me.
How is it “fair” that 1950s Chinese communists who despised America, get to send their grandchildren to occupy (and profit from) the top 0.1% of prestige occupations in America, which is the patrimony of the very 1950s Americans they despised?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10mo ago
A country notorious for faking its math test scores, macroeconomic indicators, astroturfed ‘5c army’ political engagement, and COVID case numbers, is having unexpectedly great entertainment metrics?
I don’t think we need to do any sort of self-reflective cultural soul-searching here. The reflexive 4chan screech of “BOTS” is both sufficient and necessary in this case.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?
Most mainland European countries in 1946.
I feel like your model of the situation can’t explain why Daniel’s discord mods resigned en masse even after the truth came out (so there was no way they still did believe the allegations). What is your explanation for their behaviour, if you think the parties in this situation were choosing sides based on what they believed to be true (rather than what they believed to be expeditious)?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1mo ago
but the task is entirely artificial.
It is trained on the corpus of human text, most of which pertains to artificial problems rather than real problems. So AI should be better at the administrative-state stuff than the real stuff.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
Oh come on. The “if you have this opinion you’re an incel” implication is the most trite of Twitter-tier ad hominems.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Reminds me of the Bolsheviks being so scared of “Napoleonisation” (i.e. that a strong and charismatic party leader would upstage everyone else) that they hamstrung their most popular and effective guy, Trotsky, and were much the worse for it.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
My first advice to democrats is find a vision of a future you want to build that people would actually want to live in. And not only start talking about it, but start trying to actually build it.
Adam Curtis’ documentary Hypernormalisation is my recommendation to you: https://youtube.com/watch?v=to72IJzQT5k?si=zvQm4rUCploqAEtw
TL;DR: no such positive vision can exist any more, because there is simply nothing aspirational left inside democratic Western political philosophy that hasn’t already been tried and failed.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
If they manage to grapple the booster consistently, then we can talk about “inaugurating a new era of space”. But one lucky catch does not an industry renaissance create. And tbh I’m not even convinced that catching the booster is actually that reusable. Sure, it LOOKS more reusable than a smouldering crater on the landing pad or a rusting wreck on the seabed, but is it really? Given how anal the FAA is about testing each sprocket and screw a trillion times, I’m dubious as to whether the inevitable damage caused by just the Working As Designed rocketry stuff of having 15 tonnes of liquid methane lit on fire inside it will allow (physically or legally) a booster to consistently fly for a second time.
I really want my consumer moon vacations, but I’ve been burned so many times before by spess hype that I’m kind of a doomer at this point.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
20d ago
if you're gonna fight a war , uncoordinated vassal swarm is a bad tactic because the AI will get defeated in detail
Sic semper those-who-invest-in-the-Diplomatic-Ideas-group
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8mo ago
Can you give three examples of their fresh bold takes on policies which Dems usually tiptoe around?
How are they on the JQ?
I agree that, ceteris paribus, habitual risky-sex-havers more deserve to be denied abortions than “I used three different prophylactics but somehow they all failed at the same time” neurotics deserve it. But given that you can’t fractionally abort a baby like you can fractionally vary a fine or a prison sentence, there is alas no room for a sliding scale here.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
I don’t think this term will catch on because it’s too anti-white
I don’t think this term will catch on because it’s too pro-white, insofar as fifty years of argument-by-connotation has given us the meme of “Minorities good, majorities bad”, and therefore calling nonwhites the majority and whites the minority is not a linguistic change that the Cathedral is going to condone.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8mo ago
It's not true, I'm South Asian. It's extremely common for South Asian women to begrudgingly marry a guy of the same ethnicity whilst being in a fairly serious relationship with a white guy.
Just because it’s extremely common for SEA doesn’t mean it’s not extremely extremely common for EA.
You and SerialState may both be right.
Are you seriously proposing that people use e-mail for instant messaging? What is this, 1993?
“Security” is just a jobs programme for people who couldn’t get into the real police. They did it this way and what happened? Did the heavens fall down? No. Quod erat demonstrandum.
More options
Context Copy link