@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Zensunni Wanderer

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Zensunni Wanderer

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

I generally find the idea of rules in war to be completely disingenuous and actually kind of stupid. The point of having a war is to win the war quickly. And dragging it out on the pretense of following the “rules” (in quotes because really, the rules mostly exist for propaganda purposes and only matter in the context of things that countries we don’t like are doing and creating a causus belli for stopping them or arming enemies) doesn’t really benefit civilians as much as advertised. A war that drags on for years longer than it has to because the tactics that would win it are “illegal” doesn’t actually protect civilians. They live in a bombed out country with no infrastructure, a tanked economy, and completely disrupted lives (especially if they don’t live in heavily protected green zones). The fields of Ukraine haven’t produced much since the invasion and what they have produced cannot go anywhere because of the war. They have a deep recession that makes it hard for average people to live, most industries have pulled out and anyone with brains and a passport have left for better economic prospects elsewhere and won’t be returning. Schools have been shuttered for the most part, so kids are missing out on years of school. And so what’s left of Ukraine is a basket case even if infrastructures hadn’t been targeted.

If targeting infrastructure and so on could have decided the outcome of the war in a matter of weeks or months, all of that could have been rebuilt. People could return and rebuild the economy and schools and run businesses and invented things in Ukraine rather than Poland.

I mean while I’m sure that we did accidentally stop human rights abuses, the story of never again is really only propaganda. Nobody has or will go to war over human rights. It’s just that it’s something the West has generally found the idea useful as it sounds a bit better to say “human rights” and “fighting to end war” than “we’re strong and we are stronger economically so toe the line or else.” The real reasons were pragmatic and aimed at our own ends.

You don’t have to go even that far. Eating a lot of meat is a luxury (I think some small amount is necessary for health) so given that the choice is wants vs morals, there’s no good moral reason to choose to eat large portions of meat.

I don’t think that requires the trolley directed at humans, and I wouldn’t do that.

I don’t think the war is actually winnable in any near future. And this brings up a lot of potential problems.

First of all, we’re draining resources fighting this war by proxy. Not just the weapons, but fuel, and aid. We don’t have infinite oil reserves to keep Russian oil off the market for the next ten years. Russian and Ukrainian grain was very important to stabilize grain prices globally, that’s not happening because Russia is embargoed and Ukraine is too busy fighting to plant. We can probably do it for a couple of years, but once we get to the place of fighting by proxy for ten years, these kinds of problems are going to get worse.

Second, it’s a distraction from other problems. China wants Taiwan. And if we’re distracted by Ukraine, taking Taiwan becomes much easier. I don’t see us trying to have a two front proxy war with both China and Russia. We don’t have the weapons or materials to support both.

Third, I don’t think we can keep interest on the home front for continuing to support Ukraine with billions a year.

I mean there’s a good deal of scientific research on how the human brain develops from infancy to adulthood, while it’s not perfect as it could be because of individual differences in development, we can roughly understand just how much freedom a twelve year old can actually handle on his own.

True, but the thing is that feudalism has been tried in lots of different civilizations and has proven pretty stable overall. And I don’t see how such accountability is hard to conjure up.

I didn’t exphim to win, but even the polls that had Trump losing were fairly close, and at least based on Social Media, should not have shocked anyone. The energy online was excitement about Trump where I never saw anything like that for Hillary. Ad in the rumors about her health and the rather ill-timed email investigation announcement and it’s not hard to figure out.

I think there’s a limit here. Once he’s put in prison, it’s really going to be hard to make the case that he’s viable as a candidate.

There are three things that make it at least plausible: he doesn’t seem, to my eyes very affectionate to Michelle Obama, he has zero sex scandals in his past, and these rumors has been around for a while.

As far as Barack and Michelle, I just don’t recall him ever being affectionate. They don’t hold hands, they don’t kiss in public (or at least nothing more than a perfunctory peck. He doesn’t seem to ever put his arm around her or help her through doorways. In fact, if you see them together, you only click them as a couple because you’ve been told they are. And that’s pretty indicative to me that their marriage is much more an arrangement than a romance. That might just be that she wants power. Who knows.

Second, the fact that the single most powerful person on the planet has no sex scandals at all actually is pretty weird. He’s surrounded by people who have a lot to gain by making him happy, an intern working for the president is making her career and would be at least strongly incentivized to go along. Bill Clinton could get interns to do sex acts as governor of a podunk state that has nothing special about it. Obama was much more powerful. The fact that he’s never had something like that ever seems a bit odd.

Finally, these rumors have, as far as I know, been pretty steady. The first being an ex girlfriend from the 1970s, but it’s not exactly going away either. And usually in scandals, if you find multiple people saying the same things over time, they tend to be true.

Judging by the general competence of the elites and how poorly correlated success in politics and competence are, I don’t hold us in much higher regard than the worst of the emperors. Given the crises that we simply cannot possibly deal with as responsible people, I don’t think the cliff is as far away as we think it is.

I think the best answer is to reject the idea that these identities exist and get others to do the same. Identity politics are strengthened by people accepting the premise as most ideological constructs do. If you’re living in a country that’s based on religious ideals, playing in that sandbox makes it impossible to break out. If I accept that religion is real and should be a part of state government, then there’s no outside position. I might reject the ideas of Shariah, but if I’m rejecting them to implement the Talmud or Catholic Canons or something, we’ve already agreed on Theocracy, and the legitimacy of theocracy, we’re just arguing about the one on top.

Yeah her demeanor isn’t frightened at all. Someone frightened would be looking for a way to leave the situation. She was pressing.

Is fuentes encouraging people to move to the country and form a community? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of him saying something like that. I wouldn’t have a problem with people advocating that they and people like them form close knit communities in the country and adopt whatever they consider to be the ideal lifestyle. I’d only really object to people imposing that lifestyle on other people.

I’m not even convinced language revivals in such isolated communities is as hard as you think. The issue is getting enough fluency that the next generation is raised speaking that language, rather than speaking the language of the broader culture.

The problem is of course that AI can take jobs faster than we can train people to do them. It’s just as adaptable as we are, maybe more so. Can an AI atttached to cooking utensils make a hamburger that’s as good as Five Guys? I think it probably could, given enough time. If it can do that I think it could probably make just about any food you wanted. I think it can also produce creative writing and movies and TV. What it takes is someone deciding to train it.

A much better solution is to create a Christian Hasidim which is, in a sense, a nation within a nation. A lot of the social technology they have developed can be grafted into a Christian setting: dress codes, mandatory prayers, mandatory (Christianized) rituals, a strong national identity as Christian Israel (this is already in the New Testament yet simply ignored in today’s theology). You can even gradually introduce Latin as a new internal language. Go back to original Christian house churches and you can reduce your community’s tax burden. Create your own kashrut which must be blessed by a priest. Etc.

We already have this in the form of the Amish and Mennonite churches. They have their own German dialect, rules, and dress code. But I don’t think you could completely wall off a community unless you cut off technology.

I mean I’m able to predict that I don’t know those things because in that case, it’s a known issue for me. I’m also not exactly up to speed on a lot of other topics, including things that I think I know. And if everyone around me has the same blind spots and misbeliefs about a given topic, the chances of something getting on the screen that’s obviously wrong to an expert, or even a layperson interested in the subject goes up quite a bit.

I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t know much about the law. Most people don’t. The problem is that because of the popularity of legal shows and crime dramas, most people think they know the law. Any draft readers will have the same ideas about the law you do. And so it gets into police and crime dramas where most people think that’s how the law works. Any knowledgeable lawyer or even anyone who’s been in a real courtroom knows that the courtroom scenes of most crime dramas are bunk. Jury trials don’t work that way, at all. The lawyers are not allowed to pontificate as they do in crime dramas. The rules of what kinds of evidence and testimony and questions you can ask are far stricter than what TV has taught American audiences about criminal law. It still shows up on TV every week.

I’m suggesting that killing somebody outside of a state of war without due process (with the exception of self-defense) isn’t part of the enlightenment western tradition. It took a long time to get there, and we’re still working to get there.

I don’t think he’s talking about simply handing the land over, but instead the right of conquest, which is and always has been how things work without a powerful overseeing government to enforce other rules and rights. Absent a power willing to enforce your right to a patrimony, the only other option is to be strong enough to enforce your claims. I don’t think that’s a moral claim in either direction, it’s simply a statement of fact that there’s not really a way to prevent a stronger group from taking your land, your stuff or anything else they want without someone strong enough to stop them.

I disagree. If you’re making a top level post, at least some effort should be required. Merely posting “Thing happened, so what happens next” under a link to CNN.com is really good as a top level post. Make a point, any point. Talk about how old Congress is. Talk about the political process of choosing her replacement, and the likely candidates. Talk about the implications for some piece of legislation. But drive-by posting is exactly what’s against the rules here. I’m not even asking for length — just that you put more though into it than just hitting the new post button and spamming.

Except that a consent that isn’t really clear and can be altered or withdrawn on a whim without even having to make it clear to the other person is simply unfair to that person, especially if it can have very serious consequences for the other person. If I can get your life ruined for a mistake, I don’t see how it can be fair that I not give you clear communication about when I don’t want you do do something. If I will shoot you if you come into my yard, I’m at th3 very least an ass if I don’t tell you that if you step on the grass you die.

Yes, and I’d agree that in cases where what our experiments show breaks down that I don’t have a problem with putting a bookmark there and saying “we don’t yet understand this part” or something similar. If the data shows a problem as recognized by people working in that field, then sure, I’d trust them to understand the problem and what it implies and what kinds of solutions make sense in that particular breakdown point. On the other hand, breakdowns of specific theories in specific circumstances doesn’t issue us a blank check to put in whatever speculative ideas we particularly want to believe in. We know about relativity, even if we don’t understand it perfectly I think it safe to say we understand a lot of it. Our physics is good enough to be useful in 99% or more of ordinary interactions to fairly high degrees of accuracy. We’re talking about edge cases, and yes they’re important, but it seems like using edge cases to imply that we don’t know what the laws are, when we have a pretty good approximation of those laws, and they work well enough to predict the existence of phenomena long before we can detect them by simple observations. In fact we predicted the existence of black holes long before we ever saw one and we knew quite a bit about their behavior beforehand.

I hesitate to say people have rejected science, as I said above, to the vast majority of people who don’t work in the sciences, or know people who do (and to be honest the same could be said of most academic subjects) they don’t understand it at all. They’re not rejecting a subject they don’t understand, they’re rejecting narratives and a “priesthood” of The Science. They don’t know the work of science, they don’t understand the process, they don’t understand the arguments.the reason for anti-realism and anti-science is that once you lose your trust in the basal religion of you society and suspect that those you trusted to explain the universe are either ignorant or untrustworthy.

I think some disciplines tend to over-theorize, especially astrophysics and the like. Most of the stuff about the ultimate structure of the universe are basically no more empirical than any cosmology invented by any ancient religion. There’s no direct experiment or observation that could conceivably show air castles like String Theory or Multiverses to be reality. There have been no observations of dark matter or dark energy. All of these things might be true, but we have no data, and no empirical evidence of any of it. It’s mostly based in mathematics. Mathematics that was based on other observations, but mathematics. And I think the honest answer to these sorts of ideas is “we don’t know”.

Laws on who can be on the ballot do vary by state, especially for third parties. They have to have a given amount of support, and I think in some cases you can’t be a felon.

I’m kinda there as well. As a hobby, I think it’s interesting to read and attempt to do philosophy. I also think reading, watching, and analysis of media is interesting. The academic fields are generally fart sniffing exercises producing little worth the money spent getting into it or the people who do it.

It’s good for very very basic stuff. But it encourages bad habits, and also creates the illusion of progress.

What Duolingo teaches is pattern recognition. You see a phrase in English and then pattern match it to whatever language you want to learn. This does work for very basic stuff — stock phrases, greetings, vocabulary. The problem comes when you’re unable to use the word banks, and worse need to generate a sentence not specifically covered by Duolingo’s course. You want to tell someone to do something? It’s not really covered in the Chinese course, so too bad. You need to say that you plan to do something next week, or that you’re thinking about doing something? It’s not covered in the pattern matching.

The second problem is a false sense of progress. It’s designed to feel like progress. To feel like learning. This is their business model, to be honest. They’re not selling “you’ll be able to read a newspaper in your target language,” but “you’ll finish the course and know enough stock phrases to feel smart.” It’s actually perfectly possible to be able to pass a lesson without being able to read the language. You just have to more or less recognize the shapes of the words or the hanzi or kanji or whatever. If you learn to recognize 你好 as “hello” that’s good enough for Duolingo— even if you have no idea what the word is. You can get pretty far that way. At least until you want to use it in a conversation. You’ve “learned” a lot of words and stock phrases, but unless the person you’re talking to sticks to the script and you don’t want to say anything off script it’s going to be a problem.

Finally it encourages a lazy attitude to learning a language (and other skills as well). You cannot learn if you’re not focused on the project. Fifteen minute sessions is far too short to do any deep work or meaningful practice. And this is exactly the gamification model. Just casually do a problem a day and be a math wizard! Spend two minutes a day and learn Spanish. It’s not possible to learn complicated topics without putting in the work. And for any topic that includes the logic of the system — something Duolingo and other gamification apps skip because it’s boring to learn grammar or to learn the axions of math or the laws of physics. They’re necessary, but it’s memorization and drilling until you get it, so it’s boring and left out because people won’t keep using the apps if you include boring stuff.