@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

Is there a different video you would say provides the best evidence that the explosion was due to a rocket failure?

IIRC this launch corresponded to PIJ announcing they were using one of their new longer-range (read: bigger) rockets, so the prior spontaneous failure rate probably should be estimated to be pretty high.

As someone who is reasonably familiar with high-power rocketry and has at least read the literature on making large solid motors (which is what these are), scaling up is hard: even small imperfections in the solid grain can cause explosive failures. Fail to get all the bubbles out when casting? Your burn rate (and thus chamber pressure, which can cause explosive failures) will vary drastically. Or maybe your grain cracks and pieces clog the nozzle: now you have a bomb.

Best results require starting with precisely-sized powders, high-grade chemicals, and some industrial equipment (mixing, vacuum casting) that scales with the size of motor you're trying to make. Most of that is something Hamas is having to make or smuggle in. And even for well-prepared amateurs it doesn't always succeed the first time.

if a particular building is bombed in Gaza nowadays I wouldn't need anyone's word to think it 99% likely that Israel did it

Even if the Bayesian statistics bear this out (I'm not quite as confident as you, but it is probably more likely than not), the better question is whether or not it's sufficient confidence to run "Israel bombs hospital, killing 500" headlines. In this case, it seems like it probably shouldn't have been.

One of the most relevant parts of that game theory, though, is how to re-establish trust and fairness given a history of defection. Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?

Honestly it's a hard problem of soft skills: if there were an easy answer, any number of longstanding grudges (Israel/Palestine, etc) could be settled. There are a few successful examples: Northern Ireland seems pretty peaceful these days.

For the record, I'd much prefer a non-corrupt system, but I think a partisanly corrupt system is probably even worse.

You could do far worse than Terry Pratchett, IMO.

In this case, it's not so much "the next town over" as it is "home": the guy in question is a citizen of El Salvador. Although I think there are reasonable asylum claims about how one's own (legal) country will treat them, and maybe even those are sufficiently sympathetic here, but it does complicate the "sent to random country" narrative.

I predict far fewer deportations than expected.

I think if he's actually successful, it will look more like voluntary self-deportation in the modal case rather than ICE. Making it harder for unauthorized immigrants to work and support themselves comfortably in the US makes deciding to go home easier. I have no inside knowledge here, but one could imagine this looks like more E-Verify requirements, getting serious about issuing and tracking temporary agricultural work visas, amnesty for self-departures, and possibly leveraging international relations to improve the economics of the countries in question -- direct aid sounds like something far-left, but throwing weight behind the Bukele, Milei, and similar leaders sounds very Trump to me.

I feel like this is going to be biased toward declaring groups that get along to be "homogeneous", and those that don't are subdivided into smaller groups until they do, with the broader discording factions declared "heterogeneous". You could divide the English into Anglos, Saxons, Normans, and so on, but they still mostly get along so you'll call them all "English".

I do think mainstream left-leaning media (NYT et al) have been tacking more toward center of late because of the visible success of new platforms and publications with more moderate, rationalist-adjacent takes. I'm thinking of Substack (Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias), or The Free Press, for examples. Not necessarily huge success in what has long been described as a dying market, but enough that mainstream media is at least taking notes.

These statements aren't strictly contradictory, although both are probably stronger claims than I would make. One lesson I've only recently begun to understand about WWII is that, at the scale of warfare required, seizing territory and, by extension, it's populace, gives fodder for larger armies.

This doesn't come up for discussion of American (or even Commonwealth, really) involvement in the war because the Western Allies weren't conscripting from recently-annexed territory, but the German army was much larger for having conscripted Czech and Austrian soldiers. It's not inconceivable that the same units currently armed by the West could be, after a surrender, rearmed by the Russians and marched west.

The only reason I don't find that situation hugely likely is that I'm pretty sure that most anyone can see that, in the case of a true hot war in Europe that NATO was involved in, the result would be a pretty decisive curb stomping on the scale of Desert Storm. Which is, to my mind, a huge argument for maintaining that technical and armament superiority, and also for Europe to step up their commitment to those alliances.

It's worth mentioning the Dutch famine in the winter of '44-45, which was largely caused by the German occupation, and during which the Allies (and others) tried to get food into the area.

But that's really just an interesting relevant anecdote and doesn't really disprove your general point.

On the contrary, I think you're building a big assumption in here, that countries could simply provide "quality of life worth a damn" to everyone living under their umbrella and are electing not to out of spite. Instead, as that thread covered, even providing a low-quality of life for someone that can't fully care for themselves is incredibly expensive and a massive burden on nations that are dealing with inverted population pyramids.

I haven't really had a chance to rigorously think through this, but I've occasionally had an economics thought experiment involving total economic output being measured in working hours, rather than hard currency: given that the law demands specific caregiver-to-resident ratios for these communities (the reasons for which are not unreasonable, in my opinion), we can quantify what fraction of our cumulative efforts goes into providing for our elderly and infirm. It seems reasonable that a society that spends more of its time this way isn't spending it on, say, fundamental research and technology. Ultimately it seems like technology is, other than demographics, our only way to improve this number in the long run.

On the other hand, that presupposes that research and invention is a better use of our time, which quite possibly isn't always the case: would you trade grandma for yet another cryptocurrency startup? So maybe this is just a derivative "increasing GDP doesn't reflect improving my societal preferences" complaint.

Israel uses conventional bombs and openly abandons any attempts at targeting.

I would observe that the easiest way to present this would be "Sorry, our budget for JDAM kits has run out. We're switching to dumb bombs, and we have to drop them from high altitude (inaccurately, in larger numbers) because Hamas probably has MANPADs." Comparatively few these days seem complain about Russia's use of unguided munitions.

On the schools: urban districts in my experience have economies of scale going for them, and are able to have more magnet schools and AP coursework available. Some (many, even) urban schools rank poorly academically compared to the suburbs, but their special programs can easily outperform smaller districts.

When someone tells me they are moving to the suburbs for better schools, I believe them: it's probably true for average students, but that isn't true of the schools you enumerated.

I have wondered what the bounds on the First Amendment are with respect to foreign nations establishing domestic "press." Presumably foreign nationals have freedom of speech in the US, but there is no need to allow actual enemy propaganda in wartime. Less formal adversarial relationships like the Cold War seem much more ambiguous, but I'm unaware of much relevant precedent.

A secondary objection of mine is the blurring of public and private boundary with how intelligence officials and agencies were coordinating with and sharing classified information with these companies in an effort to get them on-board with doing work for the FBI. It's difficult to articulate what I precisely find problematic here.

I have not been following the Twitter files particularly closely (nor am I a fan of Elon), but I think you're right here: while some of the actions are plausibly shady, it's unclear exactly where the lines that might have been crossed are. In particular, private parties like Twitter presumably have a right to report and discuss things with law enforcement. And law enforcement is allowed to ask nicely for data that would require a warrant to compel. In this instance, none of that data would seem to incriminate Twitter, so they might well choose to share it: props to them for choosing not to do so. Twitter can choose to hire ex-FBI folks -- indeed, for reducing certain unsavory criminal activities on their network, one can imagine that ex-FBI agents are in fact quite relevant subject matter experts on things.

There's certainly a level of implicit or explicit threat that would be too far, but I'm not sure I could pin that down. I haven't seen any particular suggestion of a clear, flagrant violation. The Hunter Biden laptop stuff (which seems to have been incorrectly flagged) gets quite close, but I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that either side was deliberately acting in bad faith. I don't like that Twitter's moderation seems to have had quite the political bias, but that is an annoyance, not a crime.

The term antisemitism came into existence from Germans trying to justify that This Time it wasn't just dumb, bigoted Judenhass (literally "Jew-hatred"), and they had good (pseudo)scientific reasons to dislike them. Bringing other semitic peoples into it implicitly validates Nazi race science like talking about related Aryans in India.

Although some seem to be trying the This Time approach again, using "anti-Zionist" as the new label. Maybe in a century someone will claim it applies to Zionist Mormons in Utah.

Desegregation enforced by Paratroopers dispersing peaceful protestors, including children, with fixed bayonets is what a Supreme Court victory looks like.

This level of victory really requires winning two (or really three, in this case) of the branches of government. Roberts has no divisions directly: those paratroopers appear at the behest of the President (nationalizing them from the Governor, representing the counterparty in this case) to enforce the court order.

I suspect Trump could call in the NY National Guard to protect the Columbia library and it's Jewish students, but he hasn't as actually done so.

Surely the REAL ID Act and Alabama's decision to certify its driver's licenses to comply have a lot to say about names the DMV prints on licenses.

In this hypothetical are you a state or federal judge? Demanding the feds remand someone they've detained to state custody seems like something you at best could ask nicely for (see the precedent of Grant v. Lee on the subject). I would generally expect them to agree for major crimes absent other major political concerns. If federal (and assuming Article III), then no. If federal and Article II, then I think it's at least unclear which parts of the executive can order which others around.

If cocoa beans do not grow in a country, its citizens should go without chocolate.

The US grows a small amount of cocoa (and coffee) in Hawaii. Both can also be grown indoors, which is a function of capital costs (and energy, I suppose) in ways that aren't economically competitive today because cheaper (import) alternatives exist.

Note: I am not suggesting that this is a good trade policy, only that "go without" is maybe a bit overstated.

It worked for Elizabeth Warren.

From a "race is a social construct" perspective, isn't this just code switching? Presumably scoped here to people who ambiguously pass as either.

If you look at the national level, it would seem that white emigration from Zimbabwe and South Africa fits this description, but I doubt anyone would describe it as such in polite company.

a white guy rushing the Divine Nine would be pilloried as a racist for showing up looking white

Not a perfect comparison, but some HBCUs have been quite successful at recruiting non-Black students, even though they've suffered the same sort of "taking of the talented tenth" that the Divine Nine have mentioned in OP. Not saying that I can't see it going this way, but I don't think it's strictly inevitable.

American citizens are arrested abroad for crimes that are not crimes in America all the time, and beyond some vague consular action that occasionally partially (but not wholly) limits a sentence the US is often fine with it.

Sometimes. But sometimes it causes minor diplomatic incidents: the Executive Branch pulled at least a few strings to get Brittney Griner and Evan Gershkovich home. Or five US citizens imprisoned in Iran. The State Department presumably has some judgement in terms of what they consider "wrongful detention," though.