JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
13d ago
Thank you! I haven't remembered all the details from 20 years ago (the anniversary this month!). Re-reading it, the especially evil part is that the weed in question was absolutely undoubtedly for personal consumption, to treat a severe debilitating condition, with medical approval and supervision, allowed by state law - and yet Feds were absolutely adamant torturing a couple of women to death is what is right and proper to do.
JarJarJedi
13d ago
That "interstate commerce" stuff has been going for a while now. I remember a case where a guy grew weed on his own backyard, and was prosecuted under "interstate commerce" with the logic somewhat like: if you grow it, then you would consume it or sell it. If you'd consume it, you wouldn't buy any other weed on the market, and if you sell it, you participate in the weed market. Since weed is sold and transported across the state lines, participating in the weed market influences interstate commerce, therefore the interstate commerce clause gives the state power to regulate what you grow on your own backyard and smoke in your own house. Yeah, it's nuts and nobody cares. Welcome to the clown world, we have cookies.
JarJarJedi
15d ago
This is just a payment-processing system, not a whole new currency.
Yes, but if the processing system uses dollars and US banks (or banks that eventually connect to US banks) then US can control it. Dealing with a ton of different currency without having an intermediary one where you can align everything to the single common measure could be challenging...
PAPSS's governing council appears to be populated by the top officials of the central banks of its member countries.
Yes, of course, but what happens if there is a conflict between them? Say, one government has a lucrative trade in goods that are frowned upon by other governments, and wants to use this system to facilitate it? What if two members have a fight and try to block (or steal) each other's payments?
JarJarJedi
15d ago
It is understandable that they may have different interests than the US, and thus want a monetary system that can not be controlled by the US. The question is, who will be controlling it then? Somehow I doubt it being controlled by Zambia or South Africa or any other African state would be better for the long-term perspectives of it, and in general African states - especially ones that are located close and thus most in need of common currency system - aren't best known for always valuing cooperation over conflict. Of course, they could elect China or Russia or Iran to be their master - but why exactly would that play better for them than the US?
They could try to implement a truly decentralized zero-trust system, but given as nobody really done it on the national scale, I'm not sure they have the expertise or the guts to try it. Would be an interesting experiment though, but there are so many failure modes there that it could only be of any value if successful.
a $200 million trade between two parties in different African countries is estimated to cost 10% to 30% of the value of the deal.
That sounds horrendously expensive. I wonder is that because of the risks? Then of course homegrown systems would be cheaper - by just ignoring the risks, until the next rugpull.
JarJarJedi
15d ago
Re-read The Left Hand of Darkness which I had read a very long time ago and remembered almost nothing from that time, so it can be counted as the first reading essentially. This novel is well known for it's exploration of gender topics, which got me interested in how it would read in 2025, being written in 1969. It actually read quite well. Since then, a lot of efforts have been made - including, unfortunately, by Le Guin herself - to make the novel be more woke then the text would support, but it did not ruin it for me (one of the reasons being I only read most the commentary after finishing the novel). Wikipedia's description of it is one of the examples of such wokification, which is as expected, and serves as another warning, if one still needs it, that trusting an anonymous woke mob to pre-chew your information for you may be convenient, but has significant dangers. I don't think I agree with all the ideas implied in the book (like "wars are caused by male hormones") but I found reading it and thinking about it enjoyable.
JarJarJedi
15d ago
Thank you for this thoughtful and well argued observation.
JarJarJedi
15d ago
Do you think this is the lived experience of South Korean normies, for example?
Yes. It is the living experience of the normies of virtually every Westernized country, I don't see why SK would be an exception.
People who cannot even reproduce themselves?
Viruses reproduce themselves excellently, and they aren't even alive. I think you need a better criteria. And as far as I know, Koreans are capable of reproduction no less than any other human.
represents an overall outcome that is clearly preferable
Preferable to whom? Again, migration patterns show a lot of people prefer the horrors of "late stage capitalism" to the paradise of "mostly functioning". The only exception maybe are wealthy retirees that prefer being rich in a poor country. But the "being rich" part is rarely achieved outside of the capitalist hell. If Vietnam and USA declared that citizens of each country could freely move and remain in the other country indefinitely, without any impediment, how do you think migration patterns would change? Would the oppressed people of capitalist cyberpunk hell rush to escape it into the mostly well-functioning paradise?
JarJarJedi
17d ago
I'm sorry but I vastly prefer "degeneracy and blight brought about by modernity and late-stage capitalism" - aka civilized living in good conditions, decent income, nice job and all trappings of modern civilization - to "mostly functioning nations" (side note - did you notice how "mostly" became the most deceitful of words in English recently? Take "mostly peaceful"...). Given how many people move from "mostly functioning" to "degenerate late capitalist" nations and how many move the opposite direction, I somehow suspect I am not a rare exception.
JarJarJedi
19d ago
By every sensible measure? Income, GDP, opportunities, quality of life, technological advancement, etc. SK is a highly advanced modern nation, while Viet Nam is "developing". If you take pretty much every criteria that common people would use when comparing one nation against other, SK would come ahead.
JarJarJedi
19d ago
being ostensibly natural for them to take this opportunity to set another trap for the Western coalition.
What kind of trap could they be setting? They have no military resources deployed there, and whatever they could ship is at complete mercy of Israel air force now that they have full aerial superiority. Nobody is trying to invade Iran on land, so Russia's favorite strategy of sending 10x people in and having 5x killed but still coming ahead on the numbers is pointless there. Not to mention even the most hardened Russian patriot would find confusing why exactly he must go and get killed by Israel in Iran and how it is vital for Mother Russia. Russia would gladly sell Iran any military equipment they could, but the things they are better at than Iran - e.g. air defense systems - are pretty useless by now, as existing ones have been destroyed and new ones are hard to deploy in any useful way in the middle of the war where the enemy owns the air.
On the other hand, they have some very vulnerable projects - like Busher reactor - which are technically not military, but given how Iran already hit many civilian targets in Israel, the case can easily be made for it to be infrastructure and thus fair game. So far, Russia made the opposite deal with Israel - we stay out of it and limit ourselves to blowing hot air, and you don't bomb the shit that makes us money. Since Busher, as far as I know, has little military value, Israel is fine with leaving it alone for now.
On the third hand, is Iran manages to really piss of Israel and it will authorize taking out Iran's oil facilities, guess who would be the only supplier of cheap oil to China. And who would benefit from the oil and gas prices inevitably raising.
So Russia is being very smart right now and doing exactly what is their best interest is - talking big game (in case ayatollahs pull through and there would be business to be done with them in the future) while not doing anything that would cause them to bear any costs. Trump has nothing to do with it - that kind of situation existed long before him, Russia had always been reluctant to mess with Israel directly, and Israel had always been willing to take Russia's interests into account as much as it is possible without hurting the main goals.
JarJarJedi
21d ago
Possible, but not the only way. As recent events showed, dropping large bombs from high altitude is not the only way to deal with things, and Israelis are pretty good in employing different modes of warfare. We'll soon see if they have any ideas about underground targets like Fordow plant.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
I have a hard time believing Israel’s opening attack wasn’t the best they can do
"Best" is a meaningless term here, it's not a competition. It's a military campaign, which is not finished yet. And the supply chain to make a working nuclear weapons is long and requires multiple high-tech processes - the ingredients of which are being destroyed now. Full reports on it aren't available yet (Iranians would certainly claim almost nothing is destroyed, and Israelis may also not give you true picture in the middle of military campaign, they have other priorities). But with almost complete aerial domination Israel enjoys currently, I think a lot of things getting knocked out. Some things - like Fordow - are too deep to be easily knocked out, but I'm sure Israel thought about it for many years and they have some ideas.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
As in - is it easier for Iran to rebuild, than Israel to replenish it's offensive capabilities?
No, it's not. Making a bomb is easier than making an uranium enrichment factory. Most expensive stuff on Israel's side is capital investment (like planes) which is not consumable, and consumables are relatively cheap. Certainly not free and at some point you could only make so many bombs, but you can build new bombs faster than you can build high-tech factories.
But you can't expect this gift to keep on giving forever.
If they stop being stupid, by virtue of that they'd also stop trying to invest so much money in destroying a tiny country which would gladly forget they exist if only they'd let them. Iran literally gains absolutely nothing from messing with Israel except stupidity points. It's literally the stupidest fight ever for them - they have no territorial dispute, they can gain no resources, they can not make more money or destroy a competitor - nothing. If they were smart, they'd do what Qatar or Saudis do - say "fuck them nukes", make peace with the Jews, buy American fighter planes and use the oil money to bribe half of the world into submission. They may throw a bone to the islamic terrorists to go fight Jews from time to time, just for the old times sake, but they wouldn't get into an open fight that gains them nothing. Israelis are not too proud, they know how diplomacy works in the Middle East - you can yell "death to the Jews" all day long, but if you don't do much to back it up, it'd be fine. But Iran government are stupid and blinded by their ideology, so they are.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
Maybe deescalation would have been possible but was seen as too risky, or undesirable for reasons that elude me
The reason is simple - all indicators point to Iran being committed to reaching nuclear strike capability, and considers all the talks and agreements as a sideshow, while remaining strategically committed to this goal no matter what. Iranian government also confirmed multiple times that their strategic aim is to destroy the state of Israel. For Israel, with it's tiny territory and high population density, even a single nuclear strike - even via a smuggled small-scale device, for example, let alone a ballistic missile hitting practically anywhere - would be absolutely devastating, extinction-level threat. Israel does not see any situation in which Iran could be convinced to genuinely desist from reaching this capability, so the choice is simple - either strike, or place the very existence of the country into the hands of Iranian regime and hope the ayatollas are kind and gentle. I don't see how any de-escalation is possible until one of these factors change - either Iran changes its thinking or it becomes incapable of achieving its goal of nuking Israel, at least in the near term.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
The goal is not to overthrow the regime (though it'd be nice) but to set back the nuclear program (and ballistic missile capabilities while we're at it) significantly. Israel is well on its way to achieve that. Whether or not that would eventually lead to the regime collapse it's up to Iranians.
JarJarJedi
23d ago
Where the first two felt to me like they were more mid-level urban fantasy fare
Yes, I agree more or less. "Mid-level" sometimes taken as damning with faint praise, but here I think it's appropriate and not negative - I mean he's not spectacular so far, but decent and enjoyable fare. Based on what you say, I'll probably get to Grave Peril sooner than I otherwise planned, thanks.
JarJarJedi
23d ago
If it's Israel and 2 years, then it's a "she". Males used to serve 32 months, now extended to full 3 years. Females serve two years (don't think it was extended).
JarJarJedi
23d ago
Started on Dresden Files. I watched the one-season series and liked it, so decided to try out the books. So far Storm Front wasn't bad, and Fool Moon is fine too. I wonder why they couldn't make a decent longer-running TV show out of it - the story and the setup is very cinematographic. Since there's a lot of book in the series I will probably return to it from time to time for a while.
JarJarJedi
23d ago
If a little child tells you, "When I grow up, I will kill you", when are you allowed to kill him in self-defense?
There are a lot of caselaw considering the question of imminent danger.
The case here though is more like the kid grew up, tried to kill you many times, with guns, toxins and explosives, and this time showed up at your door with some friends, all wielding firearms and shouting "we will finish the job this time!".
JarJarJedi
24d ago
Some people think "self-defense" can only begin once you already got punched, or stabbed, or shot. If somebody takes out a gun, aims at you, shouts "I'm going to kill you, motherfucker!", and tries to press the trigger, but you're quicker on the draw and shoot first - you're the "aggressor". Or at least they pretend to think so when Israel is concerned. Of course, there are also plain old antisemites for which Israel is bad in any case, and they are just need to find the reason why.
JarJarJedi
25d ago
Depends on where it is. If it's like middle of nowhere and no chance of encountering The Law, then about 85-90. If it's in an inhabited area, probably around 75.
JarJarJedi
25d ago
Never driven a German one (I could pretend it's because I'm Jewish, but the truth it there are just better options in the price segment I'm usually looking at, and the segment where they start getting good I just don't see a point to pay that much for a car in general). So I've driven Hondas, I've driven Toyotas, I've driven Mazda, I've driven Hyundai, I'm driving a Subaru now. No complaints really about any of them, they got me from point A to point B, didn't break excessively, didn't cost too much, and in general competently did what I needed them to do. I got into a highway crash in a Honda once, which duly sacrificed itself for my benefit and except for some bruises, I came out fine. The Subaru I have now is not fancy, but is comfortable, driving nicely and except for the entertainment system having brainfreezes occasionally (turning it off and on again does fix it) I am happy with it. Before buying it, I actually had some free money so I briefly considered buying something more expensive, and test-driven a bunch of fancy cars, including some German ones, and ultimately decided it's just not worth it and a boring middle-class car is exactly what I need.
JarJarJedi
26d ago
OK, at least from my POV the magic implied there is not how it works, so I think we agree on that. I don't think people who believe otherwise are stupid, and I don't think this warrants a conclusion "prayer does nothing". I don't even think it's really my business to convince them otherwise, beyond sharing my reasons why I think so. But I don't think "if your AV system is not working, just pray and it will fix itself" is how it works. I mean, as a professional programmer that deals with stuff mysteriously not working despite my best effort literally every day, I wish I could pray and those things just fix themselves. But unfortunately that's not what I expect to happen.
JarJarJedi
27d ago
But it is no magic bullet
That's what we started with, remember? No magic. So we are in agreement here.
While there are a lot of addicts who find salvation to be the way out, I have to imagine there are many pounds of dead bodies who tried it and found it lacking
Yes, sure, it was just an analogy, designed to address your argument that "if only affects the user, so it doesn't matter". I am showing there are a lot of things that affect the user and matter a lot. That's just one aspect, so once we're done with that aspect, the analogy does not extend further.
Tell that to the Creation Research Society,
Why should I tell them anything? They want to win studies, fine. Maybe they are bad at winning studies, that's fine with me too - a lot of people are bad at doing something they try to do, why should it bother me? I am not responsible for how they find their path to faith - even if that path looks completely wrong to you and me, and they are really bad at convincing people that there's an empirical evidence for Old Earth theory, why should it be a problem for me, to tell them anything?
Obviously some winning studies would be exceptionally helpful to the faith.
That's debatable. If it was about winning studies, then it'd be the Unseen University, not faith. For some people, probably, faith is just a technology. But it can't be just that, because then there's no point in having a separate category called "faith" anymore. If there's some aspect that is not covered by technology, then winning studies won't help much for that aspect, because that aspect does not rely on studies.
Most Christians are tired of losing the battle against science by now.
Are they? I'm not a Christian, so I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they are tired that much - and in fact, many of them don't even see it as a battle. Why there must be a battle? Who said good Christian must yearn to destroy science, or good scientist must yearn to destroy Christianity - or any other religion for that matter?
I can't say I get anything out of knowing that prayer has no material effect on outcomes outside of yourself.
Didn't we just establish it isn't true? And didn't I just demonstrate even if it were true it wasn't a problem at all? I'm also not sure which theory you are trying so valiantly to disprove here. We already agreed there's no magic. So which other "plainly false" thing you are disproving? That there are many studies that show prayers are magic? Ok, there aren't. Anything else?
As far as I know, they did not, and continued to use cannabis despite the loss of this case. Eventually the policy of USDOJ changed to a less insane one towards medical marijuana patients (thanks Obama), so the feds stopped harassing them. The SCOTUS decision, however, remains as another milestone in the long road from the limited federalist government to "you got only the rights that the feds want to give to you".
More options
Context Copy link