VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
Yet, if you think about it, where else does light come from but heat? Things that are very cold give off no light, yet everything that emits light will also be hot.
I would observe how over the past few decades we've moved from domestic lighting based off the blackbody radiation of incandescent (hot) filaments to high-efficiency LEDs producing (blue or UV) monochromatic light based on the engineered semiconductor band gap, illuminating carefully designed phosphors to re-radiate pleasant spectra with maximal efficiency. These are much more power efficient than incandescent bulbs, and are observably less hot, even if the light itself will (subtly) warm that which it shines on.
I don't think one can avoid some metaphorical heat (excessive emotional valence) with the light of sober discussion, but we can certainly strive to be more efficient about it.
The entire J6 and Trump prosecution campaign has at least IMO raised valid questions about the representation and "peer"-ness of urban juries for crimes committed more abstractly against the state. Why do DC and NYC juries, which are overwhelmingly left-leaning metropolitan areas, get to decide such nationally-important (or at least state-wide in the case of the NY state charges) cases exclusively? There's plenty of Civil Rights Era case law suggesting that non-representative juries are disallowed in the American system.
For example, I think it might be reasonable to (randomly?) shuttle national cases to other jurisdictions, or summon jurors from around the country.
Abortion was made a constitutional right by first finding a roght to privacy, and then discovering abortion being made illegal violates this right (but only in the first trimester).
It's worth noting that doctor-patient privacy somehow also only extended to abortion, and not, say, to Kevorkian or medical marijuana.
What's funny about this is that my experience is largely the opposite: I recently visited some friends in the north Dallas metroplex, which is about as close to the platonic ideal of detached-house suburbia as you can get sprawling in all directions, and they know their neighbors on all sides by name (and which tools and skills they regularly trade), and live within a few hundred meters of an HOA-managed playscape where they regularly encounter the same few dozen children and parents. As far as I can tell, the folks I know in the NYC area have much more trouble meeting their neighbors behind closed apartment doors, with front yards replaced with dark interior hallways, and porches replaced with coffee shops and bars.
I'd buy that the experience varies a lot by personality, though: if you are looking for a particular niche interest friend group, the city is probably a better choice, and suburbia can be pretty underwhelming. But I do think suburbs are often undersold generally.
I have been wanting to do an effort post on the Culture War clashes of yesteryear that have since fizzled for various reasons. This is a couple of good examples, to which I might add turn-of-the-century hysteria over carpal tunnel disabling knowledge workers at keyboards and file sharing vs. the RIAA and MPAA.
I'm curious if anyone has any other battles-gone-cold they can remember.
I actually have the opposite opinion: it prevents local shenanigans from swinging the overall vote except in niche cases (which admittedly have happened at least once in my lifetime in Florida). National popular vote means that any ballot box can be stuffed to swing the result, subject to mostly local rules on elections.
Although I will concede that it's disproportionate weighting of votes between states is probably not ideal.
Nearly 70% of Republicans think 2020 was stolen
IIRC a pretty similar number of Democrats said the same thing about the 2016 election, at least as of a few years ago. See that entire looking spectre of Russian Collusion and the probably-wrong dossier. And I expect a similar fraction of whichever side loses this year to think similarly, even though I think it's pretty stupid generally.
Our current president said to a largely-Black crowd at a campaign rally that Romney would put them "back in chains".
but the EU has exhausted its disposable stocks of arms and armor and the US, which has enough disposable firepower to zone rouge a medium-sized country, is a) not a charity and b) kinda getting busy with other stuff.
One point that I think bears mentioning more often is that there is a back-channel game at play here: the US probably could fund or supply this war itself, but has been trying to pressure (Western) Europe into properly funding it's own defense.
There is that video of the Germans at the UN laughing at Trump suggesting their military expenditures were inadequate and that Russia was not to be trusted, but official statements about missing NATO GDP targets on defense spending have been going on for multiple administrations. Here is an easy chance for the EU to do so, and it's failing in a tragedy of the commons: Germany isn't likely to get invaded soon, so why should they pay for it instead of Poland?
Also worth mentioning is a political zeitgeist in which the EU has often historically protested American foreign policies (most notably the 2003 Iraq adventure, which I will concede probably deserved it, but also the presence of US troops in the EU, support of Israel, and a few other military activities like Libya), but also expected Team America, World Police to show up when war came to their doorstep. The US seems to be trying to balance its hardware support with a goal of getting the EU to pull it's share.
I think a decent fraction of America's troubles in this regard happen because our rules enforcement mechanisms target the middle class. There is an entire class of people (including those disturbing your train ride) who are functionally judgement proof. They aren't afraid of a fine because they can't pay it anyway, and so aren't dissuaded from all sorts of anti-social behavior.
There is also a very middle-class sensibility that instinctively opposes criminal punishment for things that can mostly be enforces with fines.
Officer: "Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"
Me: "Well, some of that is going to be up to interpretation. I have an AR lower receiver in the glovebox, but no other relevant parts. I have an 80% Glock receiver and a Dremel. Six feet of 3/4" steel pipe and a couple of tools that some courts have rendered 'a firearm' in conjunction. And I have a shovel in the back of the truck. And I'm wearing unregistered shoelaces. Sorry, I'm not sure exactly which of those count."
ETA: "I also have the supplies Kirk used to defeat the Gorn in the Star Trek episode 'Arena'. Not sure if that counts either."
a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival
You know, we never did get case law as to whether or not Obama could lawfully order the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (or his underage son), both of whom were American citizens outside the US. I have long thought it would be an interesting legal case if some state tried to claim jurisdiction for a murder trial, although I concede that he wasn't exactly a good guy. Sure, the DOJ wrote a memo suggesting it was a lawful act, but I don't see a good clear line between drone striking a citizen advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and "assassinating a political rival."
I've seen lots of domestic advocacy for violently overthrowing the US Government in the last few years: can the President unleash the Predator drones on the next CHAZ protest? Is it that he was outside the country? That's not hugely comforting to anyone who travels overseas. Given that he was over the age of 35 and born a citizen, if al-Awlaki had said the magic words "I intend to run for President of the United States," thus cementing his status as "a political rival," would that magically require calling off the drones?
On the gripping hand, war (although in this case not a war declared by Congress) is messy business, and ordering attacks to cause deaths is part of the name of the game. I don't really have a great answer there. But yes, there are probably some situations in which the letter of your claim might be arguably true and no criminal trial would occur, although domestic military actions would probably swiftly lose the court of public opinion, which sometimes seems like the only one that really matters at the end of the day.
The problem is that a golf cart is a low-security vehicle
For better or worse, I think one of the less-prominent reasons that cars are so popular is that they're just big enough to be hard to walk off with. Bikes, and to a lesser extent motorcycles, are forced to depend on locks, which for better or worse are pretty universally inadequate if left unattended for hours. An angle grinder or bolt cutters aren't regulated equipment, but tow trucks are harder to conceal and use illicitly: as far as I can tell, most car theft involves taking the car under its own power.
The Jet A open air burn temperature is 1,030 °C, considerably less than the melting point of even lower melting point steels.
True, but the theory isn't that the beams melted, it's that they weakened due to the temperature. Structural steel loses half its room-temperature strength at 500 °C, and the chart I can find doesn't go much past that. Structural factors of safety are high, but not that high, and it's unsurprising IMO that they'd fail at "extended structural fire" temperatures, which is why we mandate automatic sprinklers in such buildings these days.
In my darker moments, I wonder if "decolonization" in practice is somewhat genocidal. For all the lofty "self governance" rhetoric, there are uncomfortably many examples, of which I'd consider the Subcontinent one (also Palestine, Rwanda, and many others), in which some of the first actions with newfound independence were to start killing and forcibly relocating each other.
Even some places that set out with lofty rhetoric (South Africa) haven't really been able to realize those stated values. I recognize that the colonial powers weren't exactly saints either, so I don't have a better suggestion. Just the sad state of the world. On the other hand, there are success stories: Singapore, for example.
Cynical response: imagine if DOGE eight years ago had instead cut US grant funding the EcoHealth Alliance for gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China that was already banned by Congress. I'm sure they'd be whining like there was when they cut their funding in 2020, reinstated it after "prominent scientists" complained, and then finally banned it again after the OIG of HHS reported significant compliance problems.
I'm not completely certain of the lab leak hypothesis, but it seems a pretty plausible and concrete harm to consider. And I'm not going to Stan for the cuts more generally, because it doesn't really seem like they're neutrally considering value proposition either.
Inside you are two wolves investors: the first sells the stock on the expectation that a short-term leadership vacuum will hurt profitability; the second buys the stock because the first sold on basis that the long-term fundamentals are unchanged. And they're both bewildered that the price seems unmoved, I suppose. I guess that means this isn't a taxable event.
I imagine these kinds of things still happen in the US but aren't federally funded. And US university people know anything about this?
The typical workaround is that you can host a "women in [field]" event, but you can't restrict who actually attends. To some extent everyone knows what's expected, but I do recall my local Society of Women Engineers chapter was pretty explicit about recruiting all comers, so it's not all a wink and a nudge.
Personally, I think it's just typical American prudishness. In other Western countries, it is perfectly normal and unremarkable for statues with exposed penises and breasts (non-pornographic, of course) to be displayed in public, where they are easily seen by children of all ages.
This really seems to follow from a century-spanning argument over the appropriateness of not-obviously-sexual nudity. People say this is American, but the European debate over fig leaves in art goes back at least as far as the Reformation. The plaster cast of David at the Victoria and Albert Museum had a fig leaf covering the bits in the Victorian era.
If you talk to women in their 20s you’ll learn that a chunk of them go on dates and expect a relationship with a man who has no intention of having one. This is because of social media induced higher standards, hyper-competitive labor market induced higher standards, the decline in slut shaming, and last but not least dating apps.
Despite how much Millennials and Zoomers make fun of Cold War suburban "keeping up with the Jones'" standards chasing, widespread social media adoption seems to have driven the trend to eleven. Sure, the material aesthetic is somewhat different -- less quintessentially suburban -- but the rampant self-comparison to "influencers" who are often quasi-professionals at producing Instagram vibes certainly goes beyond healthy role models in many cases.
having homosexual sex became an identity rather than just something you did
I believe this still exists: the CDC uses the term "men who have sex with men" rather than "gay", "homosexual", or "bisexual" because there are communities of men who identify as "straight" that occasionally engage in same-sex activities. Consider "down-low".
But you're correct, it's not frequently discussed despite an otherwise large pantheon of sexual identities.
I recognize this is a bit pithy, but "If only there were a genre of fiction regarding how humans interact with technology to consider the moral and ethical implications of current-year AI as applied to human civilization, specifically how it impacts creators and consumers in these sorts of cases." Sci-Fi a weird genre to have effectively adopted neo-Luddite tendencies.
I think there are probably some interesting ideas to explore. "The dialog for the ship's computer was generated entirely by ChatGPT, which is why it uses 'delve' and em-dashes (verbally!) and won't shut up. At some point the characters end up on a different, older vessel whose computer is hellishly inspired by Clippy: 'It looks like you're trying to land this thing!' at only peripherally appropriate times." Show how these tools are helpful -- or not helpful -- to the broader human condition. Does viable alignment even exist? Have a congenitally blind person talk to an AI about what color means to two different things with vastly different exposure to the concept.
to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex?
I think there's a politically-aligned difference here in what "validate" really means. Neutrally, it just implies "yes, there is [well-founded?] anxiety and fear." The way it's used in left-leaning (and even in just describing left-leaning) spaces, it comes with an implication that this is justified and insurmountable. I think there's a right-leaning take on this that can go the other way, though: "Yes, asking girls to dance is scary. Yes, they might turn you down. And Yes, you should do it anyway." There are so many parenting moments that are largely about overcoming fear and inspiring confidence ("Yes, you can walk to school alone"), and this is just another example of how we've come to coddle the median child in ways that are probably detrimental.
But it certainly isn't helping that the way the modal male hero is written has swung from Bond womanizing to platonic, chaste action heroes. Surely there's a happier medium in there somewhere.
are we also going to stop subsidizing treatment for smokers
The writers of Obamacare were willing to explicitly call out and allow higher insurance premiums for smokers, so to some extent we're already there. I have to solemnly swear I don't use any tobacco products annually at open enrollment, which is easy for me as I never have used. It's politically, but not practically, inconceivable to similarly have to swear I'm not an IV drug user or particularly promiscuous.
It's worth noting that the inventors of the lobotomy won the 1949 Nobel Prize for medicine: this wasn't just a few crazy doctors somewhere.
More options
Context Copy link