MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
Europeans generally (except for Britain), doesn’t really have a useable military capability. They have a nominal military, maybe 5% of GDP, and one that hasn’t been used for any serious war since WWII. Of course they aren’t going to go into Iran over a few missiles aimed at their ships, they simply can’t do so. They don’t have the capability, the training, or the stomach to fight a hot war against an enemy with a real military. That’s why the European strategy to most confrontations is appeasement. That’s all they have, and they have to pretend that it’s the moral high ground to simply ignore the enemies and their growing power.
I agree on JCPOA. Allowing a country that wants nukes to stockpile enriched uranium is allowing them a nuke. They have to agree, basically, to stop juuust short of the kind of enrichment that would create weapons grade uranium, while totally pinkie swear that they would never enrich further. Of course, the nominal inspections were meant to prevent the final step, while ignoring that uranium is easy to hide, and final enrichment isn’t that hard. It was intended to fail, as it could not possibly work, and quite often it would mean that they can create the weapons while giving their rivals the false sense of security that they couldn’t be developing a weapon because they’re being inspected (in ways designed to miss weapons development).
Exactly, but it also means that the people getting these degrees not only waste 4 years of their productivity being IQ tested, but because they start out upwards of 200K in debt, which delays all kinds of things that would be useful for the economy. Crazy things like, buying a house, taking vacations, having children and thus needing the kinds of things you need to feed and clothe a child. These things, in 1950, generally happened in your twenties, and now most people are forced to delay their home and family starting activities into their thirties which reduces the likelihood of having lots of children and thus raising children. This has by now created a situation in which the population is shrinking and thus unless we import workers, there’s no way to keep the systems running.
Im trying to find a better term for what I mean. What I mean by technical is a program that is skill based and related fairly closely to actual career paths that a person might do in the future. So an engineering degree that’s math, physics and engineering skills taught with the aim of working in engineering is technical, but so is a business based degree that teaches the kinds of skills that would be typically used in an office setting doing business work — things like marketing, finance, accounting, business management, etc.
What im making a distinction against is the kinds of humanities degrees that are based on learning things that are not based on any kind of useful skills. At best provided that the school cared enough to require professors to do so, you might end up with marginal writing and research skills. Even then most of those skills would be more easily taught in the technical degrees. They’re mostly useless, and I can’t imagine that anyone would look at a guy with a history or literature degree and choose them over a person with a degree in some more “technical” degree focused on useful skills that can be immediately applied to my actual business.
I don’t mean aspirational in the sense that people choose it because it’s seen as a good idea, but because they’ve managed to make support for liberal causes seem smart and elite. It’s a mark of sophistication to be a liberal, and they have the smart people (scientists and scholars) and cool people (entertainers) on side. It’s given the moral status of being “right and good”.
The expansion of credentials has been a disaster. Most credentials are useless, and in fact most outside of highly technical degrees are almost an anti-intellectual signal. The degrees do not, generally, require any serious rigor, no real achievement, and therefore are mostly ways for the schools to admit more dummies to study things that don’t matter in an environment where failure is almost impossible. Comedy should not be a stand alone area of concentration in a college. Very few humanities programs have serious rigor, and even those that do serve no useful purpose.
People who want to work in writing or comedy or art or music would be much better served to major in business to manage their career and do the work of learning the craft on their own in places where they get meaningful feedback from the future audience for their work. It’s not useful to become a good comedian to study it in a classroom and read theory. You need to get out in front of a crowd in a bar and fail until you learn how to read the crowd and tell jokes that land. Or play music in seedy bars until you learn to put on a good show.
I think gambling can, like most other potentially addictive activities or consumables have large negatives for those who tend to get addicted, and as such you should ideally be careful about removing too much friction around those things.
Making people gamble only in person at carefully selected places is less likely to be a severe problem than a gambling app in your pocket. Having to go to a casino to gamble means that it’s going to require a series of choices and behaviors that pulling out your phone and opening an app doesn’t. You have to put on pants and shoes, get into your car, drive for 10-15 minutes to a casino, walk in the front door, walk to the sport betting room, wait in line, and place your bets. To do the same on a sports betting app, you pull up the app, click three times, and it’s on. And you can potentially be betting before your frontal cortex catches on that you just bet $100 on a baseball game while momentarily bored in line at the grocery store. There’s also the issue of other people catching on. If your spouse drives to the casino every day to bet on baseball, you’ll eventually find out, because a daily hour long trip to a casino is … kinda hard to hide. Other people can see your car parked at the casino as well, so even if you have a clueless spouse, it only takes one nosey neighbor to mention seeing you at the casino and everyone will know it. Apps lack any potential embarrassment, because they are private. Remove all of that friction and I think it’s a bigger problem.
I think the situation is part of the moral dilemmas in creating carve outs. Any way you try to do it, you will end up with the same outcome which is people who want to do the illegal but lucrative thing end up simply skirting whatever the definition is so they are getting the thing but have just enough cover that they’re not technically breaking the law.
- Prev
- Next

Yes, but on the other hand, making it easier means opening up security holes that will be exploited. If I just take a woman’s word for that her name had changed, then obviously, people can use that to register multiple times, or register when they should not be allowed to. Allowing people to register in locations that are not set up as voter registration sites, means that potentially people slip by because the person working the counter doesn’t do due diligence. Online registration is absolutely easy to commit fraud with because if I have your name, a picture of a driver’s license issued to you, and your DOB and SSN, I am you to most online registration systems. That’s why identity theft is so common. It relies on the obscurity of data in a world where data is easy to come by. And without a physical appearance by the person, Theres zero chance of noting that the picture on the photo ID is of a white male, and the person in front of me is black. Online, doesn’t matter, heck if im good with VPNs, I don’t even need to be in the country to become you to most online systems.
I think the difficulties created by the requirements of securing the registration system can be solved by simply expanding infrastructure in a controlled and secure way. Opening a new registration center is probably not nearly as costly as it’s made out to be. Johnny Brockscan set up hundreds of Halloween stores in October every year. Having the government rent out an empty retail space for two months in rural areas is probably not that hard.
More options
Context Copy link