PokerPirate's quote makes me think this is all just a semantic misunderstanding.
Everything about this Pro-D/Anti-D nonsense is definitely semantic misunderstanding and we're all wasting our energy on the right dressing for this stupid word salad. Let's get back to more interesting material.
In the US, we have a common trope of the C-suite executives hiring "leadership training" from former Navy SEALs. So it doesn't surprise me that you've had them trying to instill warrior ethos in software devs.
And to say that the US Army's idea of a warrior ethos "has little to do with anything that would historically be recognized as such" seems ridiculous to me.
This doesn't pass the *ahem* sniff test. The word "therian" isn't pronounceable in Spanish because Spanish doesn't have the /θ/ phoneme. So a bunch of Argentinians calling themselves "therians" sounds about as likely as them calling themselves "latinxes" (which is equally unnatural in Spanish and a phenomenon that native Spanish speakers are either unaware of or mock us gringos for). My guess is that to the extent this phenomenon exists in the hispanic world, it is pure "cultural imperialism" from the ultra-online-left imposing "therian values" on the backwards latams.
Of course, I didn't watch the youtube videos, so I could be way off base.
You don't want your artillery man to have a warrior ethos.
The United States Military Academy at Westpoint has literally been training artillery men to have a "warrior ethos" since forever. They define it as
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I graduated from USNA and I can testify that the Navy/Marines very much try to instill a warrior ethos as well in their officers.
What's wrong with publication order? "The Cage", TOS, TAS, the first six movies, TNG, DS9, VOY, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, Nemesis, Galaxy Quest, done.
Only that this is like watching two hours of tv everyday for a year. That's way more tv than is appropriate for a kid.
Whoa... I didn't know about the Heinlein juveniles. Thanks!
Measure of a Man
I'm pretty sure this is the worst episode possible as an intro. It's got lots of great philosophical nuggets to chew on, but there's no reason to identify with why Picard/Riker are so troubled by disassembling a "mere machine" if you haven't actually built a relationship with Data yet by watching him struggle to learn to be human. Without understanding that background, the JAG and cybernetics professor are "obviously right" and the whole episode is boring.
My problem is that all of the recommendations on trek sites I've seen are like this: they are geared towards the "best episodes for experienced fans" rather than "the best episodes for introducing the series".
Maybe people in this forum can help me:
I've got an 8 year old boy I'd like to introduce to Star Trek. I specifically want:
- To introduce him to the sci-fi ideas that shaped the 1960s-1990s and that all our current generation of scientists grew up with. (For example, he'll be growing up with personal LLM assistants as background noise, and I want him to see how fantastic this was to people at the time.)
- For him to internalize some of the leadership attitudes that Kirk/Picard/etc demonstrate. I don't know any other series (scifi or otherwise) where there are so many clear examples of how to effectively lead and motivate a team.
So my questions are:
- What's the right age to start with? Something like 13ish?
- And what episodes/movies should I "make" him watch? Wrath of Kahn seems like a decent stand-alone introduction to the whole franchise, but most of the other popular movies/episodes seem like they have too much "fan service" in them. I just watched a few "best of star trek" collection dvds, and all these episodes require way too much background knowledge about the universe to make sense. Something like Trouble with Tribbles, for example, could almost be a good introduction to the series for kids because of the cute tribble creatures, but you already have to understand that the franchise is about space exploration and colonizing planets and the prime directive and the war with klingons to actually make any sense of the setting.
If prosecutors wanted their testimony, they would grant immunity. We've had literal murderers granted immunity by prosecutors so they could go after the real big fish in mafia/drug ring investigations.
It is due to grammar. Here's a github issue that will give you lots of links to follow down if you're really interested in gory details: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/1773
Ummm.... computer science wouldn't exist without this formalism. Compilers use grammars to define/parse the syntax of programming languages. More recently, LLMs use grammars to enforce structured output (like returning JSON). Tiny models on a raspberry pi + good grammar will beat frontier models on many tasks.
I don't think that Chesterton would agree with your thesis that "trad-cath society" was "on the menu" in the 1900 in a way that it is not in the 2026. For example, he wrote in What is Wrong with the World:
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.
That doesn't sound like the kind of person who thinks that his Christian ideal is actually "on the menu" in his own time period. Therefore, I suspect that his proposed solution would be basically the same:
the great ideals of the past failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not being lived enough.
... ammunition will be the new currency
It seems like in any event where physical gold is more valuable than paper gold, ammunition (and food/tools/etc) will be more valuable than gold.
You missed the real culture war for a made up one.
The newest version of Muzzy omits all of the references to the queen being fat. I found this very frustrating because fat is a super important/basic word. But it's also a major plot point in the sequel that the queen gets stuck between two rocks because she is fat. (The video plays the same here and shows her getting stuck, but the audio goes blank for a bit and the narrator doesn't say that she gets stuck because she is fat.) It's a funny moment that should be teaching kids how to say "because" type clauses that gets removed. "Because" is a hard concept to teach through examples like this, so it's super frustrating that they removed one of the only examples.
Source: I used Muzzy to teach my kids Spanish and Korean.
Also, Corvax is legitimately cruel and evil. That's why the princess rejects him.
You are confusing the derivative of wealth with wealth itself.
There is a lot of human intuition for why these two quantities should be linked, but everyone else in this thread is assuming they are distinct quantities. That is why there is a disagreement.
I don't care about your opinion. I just want coherent rhetoric.
I'm not claiming you are wrong or lying. I am claiming you are ineffective.
If you are correct, then a more effective communication style (i.e. more consistent/less inflammatory) will probably get you the results you want faster. At least with me and fellow mottizens if not the general public.
By definition it was an extrajudicial summary execution, as it was a killing that was not sanctioned by the court and he was killed without the benefit of a free and fair trial. He was killed while restrained by multiple government agents.
OP describes why it is not an execution by highlighting the difference between an execution and an accident. You claim it is a summary execution by describing what makes an execution "summary". You did not respond to OPs points at all, and this rhetorical tactic of ignoring what OP said makes you look weak.
You may very well be correct, but you are not arguing correctly.
The "one of us" post you link complains about the left using "lies" (your word for their exaggeration / selective reporting of facts). But then you go and say things like "we are in a civil war" which is so obviously not true. Maybe we're on the path towards one, but even that is super debatable (and regularly debated here).
I just want you to know that I can't take you seriously when you hypocritically call other people out for stupid-language-tactics and then do your own stupid-language-tactics. Again, I'm sure you have lots of justifications for this tactic (many of which are valid!), but as a tactic for achieving your goal of getting me on your side, your rhetoric is failing.
Father in law gave us a bidet for Christmas. Kids immediately learned how to turn it into a squirt gun. We had to return it.
Because if your goal is "live in a neighborhood without violent drug addicts", handing out free things to violent drug addicts directly undermines that. With allies like these, who needs enemies?
I think you will find that this is not in fact the goal of the poster you are replying to or any of the other related posters.
Your stated goal is easy to "paperclip optimize" away by, for example, killing all of your neighbors. After the massacre, you would clearly "live in a neighborhood without violent drug attics", but you would also be living in a much worse neighborhood.
To use proper RAT/utilitarian/machine learning terminology, I view Christian morals as a form of regularization on goals like the one you state. You already are applying a regularizer that prevents you from considering murdering all humans as the correct solution to your optimization. The Christian is applying a stronger regularization where the ultimate goal of "living in a neighborhood without violent drug addicts" is just as much about wanting to benefit the drug addicts as it is about wanting to benefit yourself.
Kids are playing luanti (an open source clone of Minecraft). They love it, and it saved me $200 on 6 licenses and their friends can also come over and play.
I'm sure they would have actually enjoyed Terraria more (because 2d easier than 3d) if it weren't for the Minecraft Movie and all their friends playing Minecraft.
Also if we're talking about UBI how hard can it be to get a robot to drive the buses and trains and cut down labour costs?
Ummm.... we've literally got private companies sinking billions of dollars into the much easier problem of self driving cars. (Buses are much harder to control than cars, there's much less training data available, and the driver does a lot of things besides drive like monitor fares and kick off druggies.) And while I like the self driving progress, it's still obviously not ready for production yet.
I have no idea what you mean. When Jesus says (Matt 4:21)
Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine.
this seems to be exactly him talking about "keeping" a light in a "place". I guess it's the passive so you could conceivably argue that he is not talking about "us", but come on...

Here's the technically correct version: Spanish doesn't have any native words with a "th" in them pronounced as /θ/. The Castillian dialect pronounces "c" as /θ/ sometimes, but that's not relevant here.
More options
Context Copy link