dr_analog
razorboy
No bio...
User ID: 583
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
At the very least this is all going to be fascinating - one of the ironclad, universally agreed-upon tenets of a social science being put to the test. Markets have not reacted well so far, but that's as much a feature of groupthink as it is reflective of material reality. It's a good time to be a prospective PhD in Economics. You're about to have more than you could have ever hoped to work with.
This is like firing up the Large Hadron Collider for the first time for macro-economists right?
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
We enter the war on the side of Ukraine, mudstomp Russia for six minutes before the nukes fly, and we all sing Kumbaya as the bombs fall.
So. What are the limits to nuclear armageddon blackmail here? Why can't Russia just invade a NATO member like Finland and say fuck you, they're a threat to our security, surrender or the nukes fly?
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
Sure, though whether or not it's a good idea depends on what the goals of the invader are, no?
Russia has engaged in a series of expansionist salami-slicing tactics like this. Giving in just seems to embolden them.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
Right, I doubt Ukraine would give up its sovereignty simply to appease Russia. I don't quite blame them.
European boots on the ground are, if anything, more likely now that Trump has sent everyone into hysterics - South Vietnam and France also held out for years with their situation going from bleak to bleaker until the US finally caved and sent in its own GIs.
Doesn't this also raise the risk of nuclear exchange? It's not like Europeans aren't nuclear powers themselves.
What choices are there?
What actual peace proposal is even credible?
Ukraine can cede the annexed land to Russia and then do what, promise it won't align with NATO and stay neutral? What happens if Russia decides it wants to capture even more of Ukraine in a few years, for whatever reason? The tools available for resolving that are the same as the tools we have now. All that was accomplished from that was that Russia was granted even more edge.
Ukraine should just unconditionally surrender? Their people won't accept that.
Russia won't accept any deal that involves a security guarantee for Ukraine. The West can impose one anyway but some worry that will lead to a nuclear exchange.
It's a shit sandwich no matter where you bite into it.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
I'm sorry I was hallucinating. I just checked my bottle and it's actually 10mg. I've been at that the whole time.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
Huh. You sure do get dates easily.
Are you like, attractive? Or do you say in your profile you're looking to get married and have kids soon?
We don't need nuclear weapons to open a can of whup ass on Russia. We can use our conventional forces for that and the gloves will be off if they use nukes in a war of conquest.
And even if we obliterate all of their power projection capability, it's still better for them to just take that and not choose suicide by nuking us directly.
The only reason we need to use nukes is to guarantee Armageddon if they nuke us.
The problem with your comment is it's flippant and unserious. NATO attempts to establish no-fly zone over Ukraine and then Russia nukes Ukraine and maybe be few airbases where the planes were being stationed in Eastern European
Then we use conventional weaponry to obliterate all of their power projection capability and they become a pariah even the rest of BRICS can no longer tolerate for having used nuclear weapons in a war of conquest.
And even in that case it still does not logically follow to choose nuclear armageddon (escalating nuclear weapons use).
No, the US and European air forces would suffer catastrophic casualties if they tried to do something like this, so Russia would call their bluff and it wouldn't happen.
I'm fairly skeptical Russia has a meaningful response to NATO air power but we can call me a Kool Aid drinker if you like.
Oh? Nuclear Armageddon where hundreds of millions die is unlikely? Okay, well I guess let's just push it.
It doesn't really logically follow that supposing the West surrenders substantial territory and the war can end, it's not enough and Russia is going to push the big red button and now everyone dies. That is the opposite of improving Russia's security posture!
After all, we desperate need land on Russia's border in the NATO alliance because... well who cares, Russia has to make the substantive case why we shouldn't!
As has been demonstrated, countries that aren't part of NATO get invaded by Russia and there's that whole substantive case of the rules based order where you don't get to just conquer nations because it would totes help quiet your paranoia.
That offer is DOA because it would put NATO military within 300mi from Moscow
Why is that the magic number? Maybe the map is distorting things but Ukraine being in NATO doesn't seem much different than Finland, Latvia and Estonia being nearby and much closer to St Petersburg and not that far from Moscow. Ukraine minus Donbas buffer seems like more of the same spitting distance.
The US has already used most of its leverage in the Biden administration. The only thing left is to appeal to Russia to avoid the butcher's bill, but given the above Russia has already paid most of the cost and political will so they're going to need a whole lot to stop.
Leverage: we could just say okay this bullshit has gone on long enough. The unilateral peace deal is the free part of Ukraine is part of NATO now. Keep Crimea and Donbas etc. Well played, Putin, you got your buffer. Now kindly cut the shit or our air forces will light you up.
Are they going to nuke over that? Seems unlikely.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
I am curious what you think about this security guarantee: Russia gets to keep the land it annexed, which is more Russian aligned anyway (right?), but the rest of Ukraine gets to join NATO.
All of this drama went down while I'm on a flight and I can't watch video right now, so I'm left with everyone else's takes. I love Hanania but am often surprised by how wildly he misreads emotions and facial expressions (he's admittedly autistic, no?)
Has anyone watched the full 40 minute video? Is this an accurate representation?
What peace proposal is there? Suppose they let Russia keep the land they've already annexed with the only concession to stop fighting (already a bad precedent). Then in a few months, after they're refreshed a bit, Russia comes up with some dumb pretext to attack the rest of Ukraine. What mechanism exists to stop them that time that does not exist right now? There's so much distrust I don't see why Ukraine would agree to this.
Without any durable security guarantees from the US, it doesn't seem like peace is tractable.
I'm including medicinal use where it was basically a joke to get a card and grow absurdly large bushes in your back yard for "personal use" that were obviously being sold.
lol
I have to admit I was pro marijuana legalization when the only people I knew who did it were me and my nerdy Internet friends. It was like some quiet patrician indulgence.
Then I moved to a place where it's been legal for decades and people in the rest of the country moved to almost entirely because it was legal there and I'm ready to turn into a Reagan Republican wrt weed.
I could probably say this about a lot of topics. The Beatles? Great music and I enjoyed listening to them. And I'm ready to never hear a Beatles song ever again and talking about the Beatles should be a ticket for a first offense. Beatles fans ruin me on the Beatles.
I could imagine being gay. Even living in a Chelsea high rise with a rotation of young twinks and staying up until 8am at chemsex or circuit parties. Seems fine. But spending any time walking around in the Castro makes me want gayness criminalized.
I'm in favor of a lot of progressive ideas until I realize how unlike the median progressive I actually am
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
They start you at the lowest dose and see how your LDL responds. Mine dropped considerably as well as 2.5mg and we haven't adjusted it. I'm also not in Japan but the US.
At 40 I would look at your 30 year risk. It takes decades for heart disease to develop and by the time it shows up in a calcium score, statins can only do so much to help.
Calcium scores also have a fairly difficult to disregard high false negative rate IMO.
If I were you I would push my doctor to prescribe me statins. They're low risk and practically free.
High cholesterol is very easily treated and could be hidden bad news.
(I'm not a real doctor btw)
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
you think people are not so desperate they wouldn't take $30k to commit a crime that simply involves lying to the government about the contents of their heart?
Yeah, I don't know.
The most absurd one that I've seen that worked is a dude found a homely lesbian woman with bad career prospects at an anime convention while he was visiting. They became friends and he paid her $20k/year and they roomed together (he paid for the 2 bedroom apartment) so they could fake marry and he could get his citizenship.
Their "wedding photos" were so obviously faked and it still succeeded. I think the fact that they were both awkward ultra nerds threw off the immigration officials.
They were friends and both liked anime so it was kind of a cute romance, in a way.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
I do wish I was, and my impression is that most of you would be happy to have me.
Yes.
Are you single? Have you considered a sham marriage to an American woman (or man)? I've seen that work fairly well.
Wild. The effect it had on me is making me find sugar kind of gross. I consistently add only one teaspoon to coffee from now on whereas I used to always add two. Additionally I used to take my kids to a coffee shop in the mornings for some goodies a few times a week and now everything in there seems gross. I haven't had a thing from there since starting Semaglutide for weight loss.
It hasn't affected my interest in alcohol though. I can still have a beer or two with dinner, though alcohol never had a grip on me.
When it comes to snacking I find my behavior changed. I can lay in bed now at night and think "hmm I'm feeling a bit hungry. there's some delicious vanilla yogurt in the fridge. I should go have some. go on, go have some" and ... the actual urge to get up and do this is just gone. The abstract thought of pleasure around snacking is still there but the dopamine boost to get me to jump out of bed is missing.
This seems like it could have profound positive effects on addiction, but it's kind of weird how selective it is.
I have fairly negative reactions to this kind of lamentation.
My first experience with "government stability" is when I was in high school. I was really good at computers and would cut class and hang out in the computer lab and the people working there decided I was a mild net benefit so they put up with me. This was during the dot com bubble so I was on the cusp of dropping out and chasing big money.
Most of the technicians there were grade A mopes who couldn't hack their way out of MS Word, but one was particularly skilled and we got to talking. He said he was making some meager $45k/year. I asked him why he was working there for so little money instead of at a dot com and he said he just wanted the job security.
That made no mathematical sense given that he could have been raking in $150k/year as a systems administrator with the slightest bit of hustle but whatever.
In a somewhat Joker kind of way I think it's more life-affirming to cut these government jobs. Between market forces for labor and more regular job changes, this guy would be dragged kicking and screaming into finding a job that paid him what he was actually worth.
(Or maybe not whatever)
More options
Context Copy link