@Tarnstellung's banner p

Tarnstellung


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

				

User ID: 553

Tarnstellung


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 553

Lastly (as I have no interest in belabouring the subject) those graphic photographs showing a slimy-black cancerous lung, labelled ‘smoker’s lung’, and a shiny-pink healthy lung, labelled ‘non-smoker’s lung’, are nothing but propaganda: the slimy-black lung should read ‘cancerous lung’ (and could very well be a non-smoker’s lung) and the shiny-pink lung should read ‘healthy lung’ (and could very well be a smoker’s lung) as it is impossible for a pathologist to determine, from both gross and microscopic examination of lung tissue, whether a person who died from other causes (such as a vehicular accident) is a smoker or a non-smoker.

Do particles from tobacco smoke not accumulate in the lungs? Is it not possible to examine the concentration of these particles and determine with reasonable certainty whether or not the person was a smoker?

P.S. Before dropping another scorching hot take, it would be wise to address the replies the first hot take received. Otherwise, everyone will assume you're just here to troll. That's certainly the conclusion I'm leaning towards.

Zarya of the Dawn

Off-topic, but looking it up, I found this, apparently a real part of the comic. I found it hilarious, it looks like a parody of the recent obsession with "mental health".

It was my understanding that it was discovered that his prosecution had been politically motivated, with a heavily biased judge, which is why he was released.

It's silly in general terms to implement population control for fear of mass famine - food supply constraints automatically reduce population growth. People suffering malnutrition are less fecund. That's the regime we lived under for millennia. Population only grew like 0.1% a year or less in pre-industrial times.

I don't understand your argument. Why try to prevent famine when you could just have people die from famine? Why improve living standards when we could just live the same miserable lives that people lived for millennia? Really?

I am also sceptical of the claim that "food supply constraints automatically reduce population growth". The poorest and most famine-prone countries also have the highest population growth rates. Not fertility rates – net growth rates after child mortality and all that. Don't bring up food aid because nutrition is still inadequate even with food aid, yet this hasn't stopped the growth.

Given that Jews make up a very small portion of the Italian population, they can be overrepresented without constituting a majority of the leading intellectuals and writers.

Demand for electricity varies throughout the day. People are willing to pay more for a kWh during rush hour than at 2 AM.

For example, suppose the 2 AM discount is 50%. That means that if you can spend 1.5 kWh at 2 AM to get 1 kWh at rush hour, you will earn 33.3% more than if you had just sold that energy at 2 AM.

Homelessness is a political problem, specifically relating to local politics, not a money problem. An extra $100 billion in the federal budget wouldn't do anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "broken buildings". You could photograph cherry-picked decrepit buildings at any point in US history. It doesn't mean anything.

Do you have a link to the paper? I want to know if they controlled for population density, which I imagine would be a major confounder.

I thought it was a good summary. If the OP doesn't have anything to add, why force them?

Can you provide some context on the bicycle ban? What is their stated reasoning? For example, I could understand such a ban based on a lack of space, because a mediaeval city centre probably has narrow streets, but this can't be the case given the taxis.

But then, suicide is probably far more common than murder-suicide, and we don't want to cause 10 suicides to prevent one murder, right?

No, actually. Ten suicides, or even a hundred or more, is definitely better than one murder. All of the people committing suicide actually want to die; no one is being harmed (at least not directly). With murder, a person who presumably wants to live is being, well, murdered.

What is the difference? Most immigrants came to the US not knowing English at all, and they managed just fine. Surely learning to read is easier than learning an entire foreign language.

Many immigrants weren't even literate in their native languages. This PDF (found here) claims that a majority of Southern Italian immigrants in the 1900–1903 period were illiterate. Yet Italians successfully integrated into American society.

Edit: Another source on illiterate immigrants. Apparently, it was a big concern at the time, but today there are no traces of it left. No Italian- or Irish-American knows the education level of their great-etc.-grandparents who first immigrated. In fact, a few centuries ago the vast majority of people were peasants (or even serfs!) with no "need for literacy".

The standard response to "modern music sucks" is that it's all survivorship bias, i.e., the music from the 60s that sucked was forgotten about. This could just as easily apply to political philosophy and everything else. Have you considered this possibility?

The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

He was right that it would turn Russia against the West; he was wrong that it would be "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era". He was expecting a new Cold War that might possibly escalate into WW3, while the US has barely been affected by the current war. Kennan, having spent most of his career with Russia as a peer of the US, could not conceive how much Russia would degenerate and how little of a threat it would pose.

This is too low-effort for the main thread. You should have either added a more detailed explanation or posted this in the Sunday thread. I'd suggest a better explanation in any case, because I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

"Eugenics" in the popular imagination means Nazis executing people with disabilities. Embryo selection is "eugenics" in a strict dictionary definition sense, but not "eugenics" as most people understand it.

Fascinating. Would it not be possible to just tell them explicitly that you were doing it for fun and not because you wanted to help anyone or were expecting something in return? Can the on debt be forgiven?

Assuming your social skills are decent, and your relationship with the Black guy doesn't make this inappropriate, and he isn't too touchy about it, it might be a good idea to ask him what the etiquette is. Not only will you get your answer, but he will also likely appreciate that you cared to ask.

solome

Solemn?

Stefan Löfven, a welder, was Prime Minister of Sweden from 2014 to 2021. He has no university degree and got his start in politics as a union official.

There are in fact many things about which I know better than all my ancestors. The safety of lead plumbing, the causes and transmission of infectious diseases – the list goes on.

Anyway, how do you know the person you are replying to has no Greek ancestors?

If you are referring to the claim that Britain only got involved to defend Belgium, that is literally just British propaganda. They wanted to get involved from the very start and the Belgium thing was a convenient excuse.

A dictator who murdered thousands and imprisoned and tortured tens of thousands of people is not benevolent.

I don't see the mechanism by which it would make you more physically attractive. If your intention is to tell women you did this, I expect it would only make you less attractive. They would think you are either crazy or lying.

Dark net operations can be taken down without backdoors. We know this because it happens regularly. Granted, it often relies on a stupid mistake on the part of the people running the show, but humans are a very reliable source of stupid mistakes.

Cryptography can't protect cryptocurrency. At some point, the magic internet money has to interface with the real world. Hasn't China banned cryptocurrency? I haven't really been following the news. Has it been effective?

I think you may not realize how widely used cryptography is. With HTTPS, every time you browse the web, you are using state-of-the-art encryption algorithms. Without encryption, if you logged in somewhere on a public Wi-Fi network, everyone sharing the network would see your password, as would your ISP and anyone in the long chain between you and the website's servers. The modern internet wouldn't work at all without cryptography, and if you make it available for general internet use, you can't prevent it from being used by the bad guys.

The maximally dystopian horror example case is: onlyfans for live streamed child rape / snuff films with tens of thousands of men watching from behind Guy Fawkes masks beating off and tipping tens of thousands of dollars an hour. Everyone involved, the viewers and performers, completely anonymous and untraceable.

This is a ridiculously unrealistic scenario. It sounds like it was dreamt up by a paranoid, technologically-illiterate boomer who falls for chain email hoaxes that show up on Snopes. For one, only a handful of the most popular Twitch streamers manage to get a viewership in the tens of thousands, and the demand for people saying funny things while playing video games is many orders of magnitude higher than the demand for child rape and snuff. I also recall reading (I think it was in a Reddit AMA with a paedophile, it may have even been on /r/themotte) that money isn't a major motivator for the "industry" and that the people who produce those kinds of videos are mostly enthusiasts who make it and share it to raise their status or because they just genuinely enjoy it. (How heartwarming.)

The Catholic Church does have the disadvantage of having to stick to tradition and scripture to a certain extent to maintain credibility. The Mormons have come up with a brilliant solution to this kind of problem: if a church doctrine becomes unworkable because of social change, their leadership can just say they've had a new revelation from God and the dogma has been revised. This is exactly what happened with polygamy.