VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I don't have much evidence to support this, but my gut feeling -- which is probably representative of the voters that the politicians are at least a bit responsible to -- is that this will depend on context quite a bit. An American citizen arrested for "hate speech" that happens in Europe and is relevant to European politics (say, participating in a riot in the UK) would be treated very differently than an American tourist arrested for something they posted in America on Twitter last year.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction is complicated and probably doesn't have broad support on either side of the Pond. Europe complains when the US does it, too: the entire Assange extradition thing wasn't, from what I can tell, particularly popular in Sweden or the UK.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
In reality, everything that the EU wants Durov to remove from Telegram is stuff Musk’s X already does remove and is happy to remove if a takedown notice is filed.
As someone who's never used Telegram, to what extent do you think this is due to right-leaning Western content, versus its affiliations and use by the Russian military and PMCs?
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I think that almost exclusively is going to depend on how many voters would be incensed or placated by that decision. Biden's supporters are perhaps more sympathetic to Griner than Trump's, but Gershkovich is a WSJ reporter. Musk has -- and I say this as someone who isn't a particular fan of the man -- managed to make himself centrally important to very public facing political objectives (NASA ISS/Artemis, DOD space launch) and employ tens of thousands of Americans in a way that would almost certainly haunt any politician and his or her party stupid enough to not bail him out.
But Musk is also a rather volatile figure and I could imagine quite a few scenarios in which he loses that central importance pretty quickly and becomes unsympathetic to the average voter.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
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.
I thought Biden would tone down the culture war and stop petty political bullshit. Didn't appear to happen at all.
I still feel kind of burned by this. The number of obvious self-owns from choosing to wholesale reverse (rather than tone down or moderate) Trump's policies has led to a number of IMHO completely predictable results, from reversing sanctions on Iran and funding UNRWA, to police defunding and demonization, to reversing Remain in Mexico, to promising that this stimulus won't cause inflation. Clearly nobody could have forseen any of these troubles.
And honestly I feel burned enough that, absent some explicit acknowledgement of the failures and a change in direction, I'm not particularly inclined to offer my vote to blithe platitudes. The debate agreement is particularly frustrating, because it seems we'll at best get one debate between a candidate that I don't particularly like (but I at least know where he stands) and a candidate that seems to have a complete absence of policy proposals (excluding the non-moderate ones of her 2019 campaign). Debates would at least provide an opportunity to challenge both candidates as to where they stand today versus four years ago.
EDIT: I am not a betting man, but I would give decent odds that if Harris wins, she'll have a lower approval rating than Biden does now within her first year in office. Partly from a long-term downward trend in approval numbers, and partly because you can't promise a bunch of actually-disagreeing voters the moon Joy! and deliver something that satisfies all of them.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
The culture war is a war between collapse and the the truths which maintain industrial civilization.
I think there's some truth to this. But the knife edge between modern industrial civilization and catastrophic failure has always been pretty sharp. I don't think I've ever talked to someone on the inside of any complex structure (government, corporate leadership, engineering) that doesn't characterize the whole thing as being held together by duct tape and baling wire. I think there's a bit of a bias toward seeing that, historically, these systems mostly worked (which is true, mostly) and comparing it to near misses today, which isn't really a fair comparison. Not to say that we can't invest in making systems more robust (We do! And we should!), but the idea that the Incomprehensibly Stable Systems of the past are falling apart is quite the anachronism: we've always been flying by the seat of our pants.
I don't consider it a bad thing, but the examples that come to mind would probably not be easy to explain if the reader hadn't seen the episodes in question. Something like the recurring use of "special" in the episode "Our Mrs. Reynolds" as part of an ongoing dialog between Book and Mal about morality, at least once in the presence of other characters unaware of the context.
EDIT: The famous "I'm always angry" line from The Avengers is probably also an example. As a line, it's cute and quippy, but it lands as the payoff for having spent a decent chunk of the movie trying to keep The Hulk under control: it's a cathartic release in that the anger is well-placed and actually helpful, and also shows that Banner has grown into at least some control of the transition. But in subsequent movies it's basically played for laughs that the two characters in the same body have come to peace -- without the setup, it feels much cheaper to me.
I'm not sure exactly how I'd tie the concepts together, but somewhere here is the difference between spending that money on, I dunno, a bottle of fine wine and drinking it, and spending that money buying capital assets to make bottles of wine. Intuitively to me, it seems like the latter is "better" even if both nominally contribute to (immediate) GDP equally.
But you're not wrong that if we all spend all our money on vineyards and not finished bottles, the vineyard isn't really a productive investment either. There's probably a Russell Conjugation here: "I buy and experience valuable cultural institutions; you spend money on fleeting entertainment; and that guy over there is a drunk buying wine by the case." And maybe someone's culture values paperclips.
I'd be curious if Real Economists have words for this concept.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
without feeling the need to insert ironic humor
I frequently see this blamed on Joss Whedon, but I think I've come to the conclusion that it's actually cargo-cult writers trying to capture the "quippy" vibe that his productions are famous for. But kind of like Michael Bay, the imitators fall well short of the greatness of the original. Not to say that Bay is the best filmmaker, but attempts to mimic his style (briefly: "make every single shot as awesome as possible") often don't really manage to make awesome shots, especially consistently.
Having re-watched some of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly recently, the quips are there, but they're not usually shallow "lol, so random" jokes: they tend to be deeper cross-references to scenes from far earlier in threads that span an episode or more. Imitations of this tend to just drop jokes randomly and assume they'll land, but, done properly, there's an established setup and payoff. I would cite specific examples, but I doubt any of them are well-enough known to make sense out-of-context.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
Taxpayers for whom tradable assets make up less than 20% of their wealth will be classified as "illiquid", and can defer payment on gains in the illiquid assets in exchange for paying a "deferral charge" not to exceed 10% of unrealized gains. This charge is paid when the gain is realized
I'm still curious how this is supposed to work for early investors in startups that don't succeed, but post impressive numbers. Say I'm a founder (I'm not) with no other major assets and for one year my share of my startup gets valued at $200M, which triggers this unrealized gains tax. Even if I get this "illiquid" status, I'm going to be assessed a 25% ($50M) tax bill. It's not uncommon for startups, even hugely publicized "unicorns" to fail completely. If the company is forced into a down round next year, and my share drops to $50M, where do I get the funding to pay my tax bill? Is the government going to take my entire stake? What if the company folds and I end up with nothing: do I still owe $50M? Is that a thirteenth amendment violation?
If the answer is "yes" here, I really can't let my assets be illiquid and volatile, lest I find myself unable to pay the tax man at some later date. It's also potentially concerning that triggering Mugabe-esque hyperinflation suddenly becomes a positive (real) revenue stream for the government when every asset is worth $200M or more and gets a 25% annual wealth tax.
And it probably pushes investors into infrequently-valued investments: buy a one-of-a-kind Renaisance masterwork, and how does the government handle that valuation? Supposedly my jurisdiction assesses my real estate property values annually, but I can tell you I've seen pretty substantial divergence between actual sale prices and assessed values over the last few years.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I have wondered if replacing income tax with a tax on expenditures would fix some of these questions. Sure, the rich might accrue huge bank accounts, but money isn't actually useful until it's spent. Something like a flat percentage (or maybe progressive) on anything over the computed cost of living for your family. Sure, this has its own questions: does buying investment assets count? Does it have a negative version of the EITC? Can you pro-rate multi-year expenses? I think you might be able to balance timing expenses pretty reasonably with cumulative lifetime values (math: a conservative vector field, although we could do this with income tax already). How do you deal with cash tips?
Maybe it's more bookkeeping to track expenses, but those are starting to be almost entirely automated systems that could make this feasible. But I'm also not really sure it's a better system, just a different answer to a problem with no ideal solutions.
Small arms alone don't help against tyrants these days unless the tyrants have the gloves firmly on;
I think the Waco and Ruby Ridge stories show that while the state can defeat partisans in battle with small arms, this isn't always a win for the state. There's a convincing case in my opinion that the state lost the wars there: even decades later they're still treating groups like the Malheur Wildlife Refuge standoff and the Bundy conflicts with kid gloves. And even despite that, the government lost most of the resulting court cases even when you'd think there was clear evidence of their case.
Absent a huge swell in public opinion away from small-armed partisans (most obviously: poor trigger control and injuries to uninvolved parties), I think actually rolling out the jackboots might well burn public support faster than it can put down rebellion. And I don't think that's purely right-coded either: I doubt squashing riots in 2020 would have brought a more peaceful resolution there, either. There's a fine, if observably fuzzy, line dividing public support for state violence from denouncement: even the Ma'Khia Bryant shooting was controversial.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
tough way to pull off an assassination
My first thought for obvious-but-probably-wrong conspiracy theory is that your missing billionaire disappeared himself intentionally to spend the rest of his days at large. Something like the Carlos Ghosn escape from Japan story.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I have never found a serious source for this in aggregate (probably publication bias), but I have a suspicion that outcomes correlate negatively with funding. It's not hard to look and see that the districts that spend the most per student tend to also be the worst performing overall.
Some of this is higher costs in urban areas, and frequently bad districts can have some really good magnet schools. And I'm also not really of the opinion that this means cutting funding would improve outcomes.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
Wait, is wearing ties unhealthy? I've never heard that before, and to be honest I'm a bit skeptical of the claim. Do you have a source?
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
There are still states holding out on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion funds, which the states are only on the hook for 10-ish percent. And IIRC SCOTUS loosely capped the amount of allowed funding coercion. So it does happen, but nobody seems to be turning down highway funding these days.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
Even if she can somehow double the supply of housing, this will destroy housing as an investment.
I am slowly becoming convinced that this is eventually necessary, but will be incredibly painful for many. There still are places we can build -- home prices in Texas are mostly down from two years ago, and California is trying statewide zoning changes that might work somewhat.
But we seem stuck with the choice of following other Anglosphere countries in making housing cost a lifetime or more of wages, or burning a whole lot of folks who thought it would be a nest egg. IMO the best course is probably to spread the hurt over a generation or so rather than rip off the bandaid into a culture where housing isn't expected to appreciate (Japan, somewhat?), even though that will probably hit my net worth too.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
recreated the magic of 2
As far as I know, neither of the first two games seems to be available on Steam. Are they (legitimately, I guess) available anywhere these days?
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
than to consumers playing Hogwarts Legacy or dicking around with open source AI models.
Somewhere in here is an idea to prompt AAA game studios to develop games that require huge amounts of VRAM so that GPU manufacturers are elbowed into offering consumer cards that can do this. But that will take time, and for all I know looks like some sort of time-persistent AI shading model ("game rendered in the style of Van Gogh").
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
One of the factors leading to the American Revolution was that the British leadership wasn't really interested in Westward expansion: it kept causing troubles with the natives and their allies requiring expensive interventions (see the French and Indian War) and the American colonies were, economically, afterthoughts compared to the sugar trade in the Caribbean. Not to mention the entire Louisiana Purchase thing.
I'm not sure the modern borders could have happened at all, much less been a likely outcome under Crown leadership.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I guess I haven't spent too much time in the Rust Belt specifically, but there has been a lot of migration around the country for at least the last century. It's easy to point to growing Sun Belt cities and stagnating-or-shrinking northern ones -- an older friend from Ohio noted that Cincinnati is about the same size it was in the 70s and still mostly fits inside the same interstate ring road, while Houston is in the process of building a third.
But it's also impacted smaller communities. My family history involves a couple tiny rural towns in the South that have since completely evaporated and left only road signs and a couple still-occupied houses. The historical marker points to where the one room schoolhouse and the general store had been. These places disappeared with better cars and roads in the middle of the last century: we can just bus the kids to the bigger school down the road, and drive into town for the store. Will this get rebuilt? I don't know: some developers nearby have been trying to sell swanky ranchettes, but even if that happened in the same place, it's a fundamentally different community -- this time around it has electricity and indoor plumbing, not to mention air conditioning and a major city within a few hours of driving, none of which were there a century ago.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
The set of examples coming out of Canada has been sobering, especially as someone who was loosely in favor of allowing voluntary euthanasia previously.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
My gut feel on this is that "generic democrat" polls really well generally, but no single answer polls better on hard issues like immigration, or Israel/Palestine, and such for which I haven't seen any concrete policy proposals from her camp.
There strikes me as an element of wish-casting generic candidates as "closer to my, obviously reasonable, position" than any real candidate can be. I guess we should expect real proposals from the convention at this point? Or maybe they plan to phone in the "pass the bill to know what's in it" strategy. I will admit I'm mostly avoiding watching politics closely so far.
VoxelVexillologist
🇺🇸 Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
Using alternate accounts to post things that might otherwise violate personal OPSEC rules requires moderator approval?
Not complaining, just asking for clarification.
Literally the current president and de-facto head of the Democrats told a primarily-Black audience that now-considered-milquetoast Mitt Romney would "put you all back in chains." The idea that whomever the Republicans field will get demonized as fascist and slavery-adjacent is not wrong, but you've also got a point that in many ways Trump is an exceptionally bad, although IMO not a guaranteed loss, candidate in 2024. I sometimes think that if the Republicans found a good candidate, someone Reagan-esque in all the right ways, that the DNC would be completely unprepared. But at this point it's not obvious who that would be in the next cycle.
More options
Context Copy link