@Mantergeistmann's banner p

Mantergeistmann


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:52:03 UTC

				

User ID: 323

Mantergeistmann


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:52:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 323

But we should not take part in acting a lie any more than in telling a lie. We should not say that men are equal where they are not equal, nor proceed upon the assumption that there is an equality where it does not exist; but we should strive to bring about a measurable equality, at least to the extent of preventing the inequality which is due to force or fraud. Abraham Lincoln, a man of the plain people, blood of their blood, and bone of their bone, who all his life toiled and wrought and suffered for them, at the end died for them, who always strove to represent them, who would never tell an untruth to or for them, spoke of the doctrine of equality with his usual mixture of idealism and sound common sense. He said (I omit what was of merely local significance):

"I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal-equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all - constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, everywhere."

We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who would make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service. There should, so far as possible, be equal of opportunity to render service; but just so long as there is inequality of service there should and must be inequality of reward. We may be sorry for the general, the painter, the artists, the worker in any profession or of any kind, whose misfortune rather than whose fault it is that he does his work ill. But the reward must go to the man who does his work well; for any other course is to create a new kind of privilege, the privilege of folly and weakness; and special privilege is injustice, whatever form it takes.

To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are far-sighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down.

  • Teddy Roosevelt, in his famous "Man in the Arena" speech (AKA "Citizenship in a Republic".

Why, here, obviously.

That's... uncannily close yo my experience. No more must I try to find a forgotten answer to how to do something in Excel, I just ask the chatbot!

Yeah. One page for early career, maximum of two pages (one sheet front & back) for those with more experience.

This creates a market where you don't just have to compete with those in your social circle -- you have to compete with everyone who has access to the internet. Boomers like to talk about "meeting people in person," and "submitting your application in person," but neither works today. Increasingly employers will laugh at the idea of submitting a paper resume

Also that the manager you meet in person isn't the first gatekeeper: I've seen HR block resumes because they disagreed with the hiring manager (who knew the candidate's skills and experience from working with them) over being allowed to interview a candidate.

See also: Rickover's suggestion to improve the DoD's efficiency by taking one third, have them do nothing but write long form letters back and forth to a second third, and let the final third actually do the job of running the military.

Yeah, I'm just pointing out that there were a LOT of jobs that Boomers could walk into with merely a high school diploma and learn as they go, that NOW are very clearly gated by the degree requirement, OR knowing a guy.

I once worked on a project with a former Smithsonian curator. He only got his undergrad in history after he started working for the Smithsonian, and as he put it, with his credentials (no Masters or specialized Museum Studies degree), he wouldn't even get past the screening if he applied to his old job.

With any photos of a face caught looking awkward or annoyed analyzed as "guilty of being a fascist themselves and obviously feeling called out".

Depends on if he was there on thr government's dime while pretending to work. Which, granted, is kind of the American Dream, but you're supposed to pretend to be kind of discreet about it with something resembling a fig leaf of plausible deniability.

At least when submitting your expense report.

Sadly, my company has an opening that'd be perfect for you (if you’re willing to relocate to SC), and I don't believe we generally have too many applicants as competition... except that it requires 4 years experience plus the degree. And our HR is inflexible in new and exciting ways about that sort of thing.

As @HereAndGone2 wrote, it really is the classic job trap.

calling on people to stand if they felt that the first duty of the government is to the citizens of the nation, "why wouldn't you stand for that"

Is there a term for this sort of gotcha technique (referring to Trump's behavior, not your analysis)? It shows up similarly in polling, too, where it's clear that the question is blatant bait, people take the bait because of course they determine that the correct answer from their pov is "that's bait, fuck you", and then it gets used as red meat for the base.

If this sort of strategy went nowhere against Yemen then why would there be any expectation of success against Iran, which is larger, more powerful and more populous by several times?

The idea presumably would be that if you can degrade the IRGC's capabilities, since they act as kind of the internal suppression force (being a sizeable army/navy in their own right), the regime won't be able to maintain control over a populace in revolt. At least, that's my take on it.

Another take is that it's a lot easier to cause harm to a sophisticated nation like Iran than to a... less industrialized/urbanized place like Yemen. It's a lot easier to destroy (from the air/sea), say, the US Navy's nuclear shipyard in Newport News than it is to clear out a bunch of people in Appalachia with missiles being smuggled to them.

The so-called strategic genius won a fleet battle against all odds by using tactics obvious to a particularly bright seven year old

I'm curious now as to how many works involving strategic geniuses actually do involve tactics that wouldn't be obvious to a 7-year-old? I don't recall, say, the Honor Harrington books generally relying on amazing tactics, so much as well-executed tactics and knowledge.

I wonder if populating generated worlds and settings and such would be a better place to start.

That's also the argument about whether or not government funds are "being used for abortions", is it not?

Getting fat on rice flavored with butter and salt sounds difficult.

I'm not fat, and I'm willing to put that down to genetics & metabolism rather than any personal virtue, but I can absolutely house a very large amount of rice with butter & salt. Or noodles with butter & salt. Or bread, with salted butter so thick you can see tooth marks.

I mean, Idiots of GMod was always mad.

I remember early experiments with that, but it wasn't simulated so much as tracked. Threw off the puck balance or something?

Same as seeing an "old person's" listed age in an anime/Final Fantasy. But I tend to mentally age up everyone in those sorts of media by default, so...

Perhaps the best use I can imagine is playing a single-player game and getting a multi-player experience, against players who are at my skill level and have good etiquette. But can LLMs do that?

Not if their training data includes chat from real multiplayer humans, no.

We're not talking about the gucci mres given to our warfighters that include coffee, skittles, and pizza

I remember SteveMRE opening an Italian one that came with Cognac.

Isn't it also that when you've got a ton of different kingdoms and principalities and duchies and fiefs and city-states, that it's a lot easier to find someone willing to take a chance on a new technology (and then once adopted, it'll spread) than convincing a single strong ruler choosing to adopt and spread a new and potentially destabilizing technology?

You don't want your artillery man to have a warrior ethos. You want him to be a mix of gym bro, accountant, and auto mechanic

You also need him to be willing to man his gun even when outgunned, to keep fighting when those around him are being blown to bits. Now, maybe the soldier mentality and sense of discipline will be enough, like for AD Wintle:

On his first night a shell burst near him, splashing over him the entrails of his sergeant (to whom he had just been introduced). Wintle later admitted to being petrified. As the bombardment continued, he dealt with his fear by standing at attention and saluting. As he later wrote, "Within thirty seconds I was able to become again an Englishman of action and to carry out calmly the duties I had been trained to perform".

Sure, I'd much rather that sort of "soldier" than a warrior! But you're not necessarily going to get that sort of person in the US Army, and certainly not easily and in large numbers. You're much more likely to be able to get guys who'll want to fight for the sake of fighting, even when they're losing.

There's a follow-up here on cameraderie, and where that comes into play, but it's been ages since I've read McPherson, so I'm not the guy to get into it.

Herbert also deliberately makes the case that "hostile environments create the best fighting men" via his comparisons of Arrakis and Salusa Secondis. Unless we're meant to assume that everyone in-universe who comes to that conclusion is barking up the wrong tree.

It's one of life's great mysteries isn't it? Why are we here? I mean, are we the product of some cosmic coincidence, or is there really a God watching everything? You know, with a plan for us and stuff. I don't know, man, but it keeps me up at night.