gattsuru
18d ago
Necessary starting caveat: Unikowsky is an absolute putz when it comes to anything Trump-related, and his analysis should be recognized as on the "ought" side of any is-ought divide, and, more damningly, an "ought" that will not apply to any case where he doesn't like the victim.
But were deportations always so Kafka-esque, or is this new?
Traditionally, deportation was a civil matter that mooted most challenge as soon as the deportation was completed. So, yes. I think there was a statute to expand jurisdiction to cover the parade-of-horribles example of a US citizen being deported so they could start the suit from a third country, but I'm having trouble finding the text.
Did previous administrations act in bad faith, like this?
The previous administration turned a statute requiring it to deport aliens convicted of a specific list of crimes into a purely advisory suggestion, and BenGarrison here keeps insisting we just need to change the statute to require it more, bro. Or is that not what you're talking about? If you want examples of past deportation schemas that didn't have criminal conviction levels of due process, the Eisenhower-era process is usually the go-to example.
And where are the voices that are both pro-deportation and pro-legal protections against fed fuckery?
I think they gave up somewhere in the mid-1960s, where Woodby v. INS turned the statute's "reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence" into "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence". Whatever patience there might once have been for the process arguments fell apart when the same judges and advocates have skipped over them in contexts involving citizens facing criminal charges.
gattsuru
19d ago
There were a decent number of followups, the problem's that we were kinda stuck between 'impossible to prove a negative' and 'she doeth protest too much'. Even if everything in the Bloomberg story was true, tearing down every single chip on a wide variety of boards couldn't actually disprove the claims, since Bloomberg said that only boards delivered to high-profile targets were modified. And neither did we ever see a released photo of a modified board, or a hexdump of whatever compromise it was supposed to be pushing. But there's also pretty good reasons to not want to do that from a national security perspective, and thanks to certain types of gag orders the feds can make it illegal to admit there's a problem.
My gutcheck is that it's not 'real' in the full sense Bloomberg claimed rather than just simple modified firmware -- though a lot of ErrataRob pointed out contemporaneously, a lot of the reasons that it feels 'not real' might be because of incompetence by the reporting -- but it's a messy enough situation that I can't put even moderate confidence in it.
gattsuru
20d ago
Yes, there's a lot of ways to square the circle; I've given similar answers (albeit with self-defense and necessity prongs) when Trace chased me down in DMs back on reddit to test my principles against Arthur Chu (yes, really).
But Trace denied that, at length, both in DM and publicly, and his rule got them to TheSchism today. Nor does some other part of the Blue Tribe have a well-established principle that they're holding here, that applies to both their side and their enemies in a wide variety of cases. It's the existence of the norm, not the possibility of one, that's the issue.
gattsuru
20d ago
If someone wants to establish a more narrow one, I'll work with them on that. Or, if it turns into another two-step of 'i hate violence'-'punch the nazi', where 'nazi' includes everyone to the right of 2015 Obama, point that out. But I need something to work with.
gattsuru
21d ago
A lot of the STI numbers are HPV and herpes, which aren't curable, followed by chlamydia and trichomoniasis. There's fair reasons for herpes to be an issue, but HPV and trichomoniasis are almost always asymptomatic in men. The clap is the central example of an STI (literally the 'it burns when I pee' disease), but it is curable -- the trouble's usually diagnosing it, especially since only about half of those infected are aware of it -- but in turn I'd expect faceh may be concerned about the upstream causes.
I'm pretty skeptical about the gay or bisexual is fake thesis, but I'm also pretty skeptical that many straight guys would be that opposed to their significant other jorking it to some femslash every so often. Hell, I don't have a great grasp of the average straight guys' minds, but even if it would take some adjustment I'm not convinced that the average straight guy would be unwilling to date a woman who occasionally wanted to take a strapon to another woman, so long as the guy got invited.
gattsuru
21d ago
I'll caveat right away that these numbers are coming from Grok (and Grok is pulling from academic sources that are worse than just an LLM); I don't trust them, you shouldn't trust them, yada yada. two links, because I derped on setting up the first (yes, I shouldn't have asked about the felony one first; everything else got obsessed with race.).
-
"Thus, 35-45% of 52-68% yields an estimate of 18-31% of American men aged 19-30 having both an income above $50,000 and stable employment."
-
"To estimate the percentage of American men aged 19-30 who are both emotionally stable and have no history of interpersonal or domestic violence:[...] Assuming independence (a simplification, as mental health issues like PTSD or substance abuse can correlate with IPV perpetration), we multiply the probabilities: 0.80 × 0.70 to 0.85 × 0.75 = 56-64%. If we account for correlation (e.g., mental distress increasing IPV likelihood), the range might be slightly lower, around 50-60%."
-
"Thus, an estimated 16.4 to 18.2 million American men aged 19–30 are not obese [ed: 60%], based on recent data."
-
"Approximately 80–89% of American men aged 19–30 would not cheat in a relationship given the opportunity, based on reported infidelity rates and adjusted for hypothetical temptation." [ed: I told you I don't trust the LLM]
-
"Approximately 40–60% of American men aged 19–30 are fiscally responsible, defined as regularly saving, budgeting, and managing debt without significant financial strain. This range accounts for the variability in financial independence and literacy among young adults."
-
"Approximately 65–75% of American men aged 19–30 have not fathered a child."
-
"Approximately 65–75% of American men aged 19–30 have not had more than five previous real-life sexual partners, based on CDC data, General Social Survey findings, and recent trends in sexual inactivity"
One that pidgeon didn't cover, but I think you are motioning around:
- "If 10-15% of men aged 19-30 have adult felony convictions and 3-6% have juvenile felony-equivalent records, a rough estimate, assuming minimal overlap (since juvenile records often don’t carry into adult systems), might be 13-20% of American men aged 19-30 with either a felony record or a juvenile record equivalent to a felony."
Add them together, and Grok says:
- "Approximately 2–5% of American men aged 19–30 meet all the criteria: stable job, income above $50,000/year, no history of interpersonal violence, not obese, would not cheat in a relationship given the opportunity, fiscally responsible, have not fathered a child, and no more than five previous real-life sexual partners."
[caveat: it did so with the formula "0.65 × 0.30 × 0.80 × 0.60 × 0.80 × 0.40 × 0.65 × 0.65 ≈ 0.0092". Don't trust LLMs!]
And this doesn't include stuff like orientation (despite what you'd think from the yaoi fans, there's a lot of distrust of actual bi guys among women) or student debt or willingness-to-have-kids or whether they're already married. It still leaves a gender gap, but given that the 'seekers' approach was comparing two decades of men against one decade of women, that's not really surprising.
I think that's bad in a different sense; having the vast majority of both gender 'not count' suggests that we're measuring the wrong thing.
((And I think this sort of button-pushing is itself dangerous, in the sense that it's letting both of us do harder statistical analysis without the gut-level integration of the knowledge that adding multiple filters after each other breaks apart comparisons.))
gattsuru
21d ago
I think a sex worker will ALMOST CERTAINLY have a body count greater than 5, so it'd be redundant to include.
Depends pretty heavily on how you're defining sex worker, but even the prostitution-with-numbers-filed-off escort services sometimes do have one- or two-off sugar daddy sorta behaviors, and that'd be at least a small red flag to me. I don't get why straight guys care about how many people who've seen a potential partner naked, but if you think it's a significant, there are 'sex workers' who have zero body count but tens or hundreds of thousands of watchers via camera.
gattsuru
21d ago
For a more concrete criticism, the goal of getting a more combative Scott Alexander would be to get someone who was smart and interested in the truth to not flinch from the truth. That's the problem with Hanania. He isn't.
This weekend's example is this quote:
Pinker: Woke classes make up 3% of what is offered at Harvard. The rest of the time, students are learning about the Roman Empire, quantum mechanics, or the functioning of the brain.
I'm sure there's some exceptionally technical read where Pinker's actual quote wasn't strictly lying; I'm sure this student exists, and their AI tool might even be more than an Excel spreadsheet with Copilot use. But ignore for now the unsolvable question of whether the sentiment analysis was calibrated correctly, or whether the 150 courses focusing on woke bullshit might not be the best use of literally thousands of dollars of student debt.
You know, I know, and Hanania knows that not every single bit of left-wing propaganda marks that out in sharpie on its forehead. Pinker is not very clear what "about a third of these had a discernible leftward tilt" is referring to, and whether it's the 5000 courses for the Arts and Sciences (aka 1600+!), or just the 3 or 6% of 'woke'-topic courses (which would be, bluntly, a lie; you can leaf through the course catalogue and find more than 50 course that obviously lean left). It's not even an accurate summary of what Pinker said, and it's certainly not interested in examining what Pinker actually spelled out rather than what Hanania wishes were the case.
Ok, well, 'public intellectual plays game-of-telephone to munge data, doesn't bring any skepticism to dubious claims', yeah, we've all seen it. But there's another half of the tweet, and it's the sort of writing Darwin would put out.
A movement that wants to abolish the intellect as a response to woke is a cancer.
Does the conservative movement want to abolish the intellect? Well, Hanania wants that to be his thesis; why bother engaging with anything else!
Or for another example, from Will DEI Make Airplanes Fall Out Of The Sky, where Hanania quotes a Spirit Airlines exec saying:
As importantly, these 1,500 hours can all be earned flying small, single engine planes in rural areas, or even flying hot air balloons. During the years of building these hours, most applicants do very little to train themselves in the career they plan to enter, such as flying big jets into New York and Chicago.
I've got complex feelings about the 1500 hour rule, but this is a commercial exec making claims in his commercial interests, not a factual analysis, and those claims are not actually true. No airline would accept a pilot with that sort of experience -- and most would consider significant balloon experience a demerit -- but even if you're trying to Well Akshully about the strict terms of the 1500 hour rule, it includes 75 hours of instrument flight time that you can't get in a hot air balloon by definition (IVR-certified lighter-than-aircraft count as 'airships'). More critically, flying big jets into New York and Chicago are not the career an airline pilot will be entering, and a large portion of new ATPs come to the exam with recent experience with stuff that is like the regionals that their career will actually start with in a big airline.
Even when he has claims that could have defensible versions, he does this sorta thing. A certain class and theme of paranoid is becoming accepted on the conservative sphere? Maybe, though you have to draw a bit of a post-hoc description. "Unfortunately, Gribbles are more upset about the approval of life-saving vaccines than any other [ed: emphasis added] aspect of the pandemic response, showing that podcasts and a community of paranoid individuals all doing their own research is not an acceptable replacement for medical experts." I betcha I can name something they care more about! There's another (paywalled) bit that, and it's kinda hilarious how aggressively he avoids mentioning the then-current scandals about late Biden pardons.
He does it even when it's stupid, pointless, meaningless shit.
It's the same reason that Yglesias and Matthews are so appalling. It's not that they're wrong; it's that the sounds coming from their mouth are nothing more than noises they think most likely to persuade some portion of their readers. I had the same criticism back when he was aiming this at the left, and I've bashed right-wing writers here and elsewhere for doing the same thing, I'm certainly not going to find it more appealing because he's aimed at the other direction today.
Okay, I didn't do that. Guilty as charged. I guess every time a leftist does something violent, I need to write an effortpost criticizing it or you won't believe I actually feel strongly that leftist violence is bad?
No. And I already explained that: "I'm not demanding that we find one individual that has such an opinion on all broad topics, or even that we find anyone willing to answer every single offense ever, but I'm feeling a lot closer to Diogenes than Lot, right now."
I'd be surprised if you've literally never written up some paean about something, but do you genuinely not understand why zero out of three of the highest-profile examples coming up dry might point a direction? It's not like I'm pointing to nobodies like Baca or Dolloff or Gardner here, although if you'd commented on them I'd take that, too. Or you could point me to someone who has!
So if I say "I do not remember this happening" that's "covering my ass" because I admit someone might have posted something I don't remember or might have missed?
No, I say it's covering your ass because when someone tried to point out people who did, here, this didn't change the slightest bit of your position or have you bring forward some different more important fact; it had you complain that I wrote about it.
This is not moving the goalposts. This is my reason why I think the premise is wrong. You may disagree with it and you may think I have not argued the case sufficiently.
Yes! Precisely! I think you've presented a threadbare argument for your case, and when evidence came up against that threadbare argument, rather than provide new evidence for your case, you jumped new steps of what anyone disagreeing with you must be dependent on.
I mean, it's not "wrong" it's just petty and mostly irrelevant. Why should I consider your critiques of the Schism to meaningfully generalize to all Blue tribers?
Because they're a subreddit that was formed around and because of supposed adherence to this principle, and its importance to appeal to Blues. Because they are not selected from Blues in some way that should make them atypically willing to overlook violent rhetoric. Because I keep asking you for examples of better Blue groups and organizations, and you haven't presented any. Because I've been looking for a near-decade for better Blues groups and organizations, and haven't found any.
((and, indeed, instead find Blues that spontaneously turn out to not; both "my father-in-law jokes or 'jokes' about throwing molotov cocktails at houses with Trump signs" and "the minecraft mod guy I worked with is really proud of punching Brendan Eich and wishes he did it more" are not hypotheticals.))
His thesis is that Blue tribers have tolerated and permitted political violence and thus normalized it (and destroyed the norm against it) and that when Red tribe turns the table and starts killing Blue tribe public figures and Blue tribe thinks this is bad, Red tribe will say "Little late, bub." I clearly stated I think this is wrong, and I also admitted, right in the post you are responding to, that I might be proven wrong and FC proven right.
Yes, and I'm trying to get an answer out of why you think it's wrong, and if those reasons are supported.
When Trace blew up at you and told you off, we had to mod him, but man did I understand why he did it.
?
Did I miss something? Netstack said this was the first time Trace got modded, it was his last set of posts here, and I defended Trace in most of his last thread, where the facts demanded it. Was there something earlier? Or is this something from back on reddit?
I'm sure this conversation is very satisfying to you because you will get lots of upvotes and I will get lots of downvotes, but you're just being amazingly disingenuous here.
I don't think playing to the crowd helps (and to some extent it breaks your brain), and I'd be very skeptical that people dive that far into debates between you and I to bother reading or upvoting them, or even noticing they exist.
I want to believe you, when you argue against a trend of further escalation. But what, exactly, do you think you're bringing to support this theory? If I drop a [bunch of polls](https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/new-survey-reveals-disturbing-trend-in-support-of-political-violence-president-trump-left-of-center-elon-musk-liberal (admittedly, not very robust), does that change your mind? I can show pictures of my tumblr feed, or my discord, or of forums I've once called home, and the only reason I can't show real-life is .
gattsuru
23d ago
I read this three times and I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
You asked me, to quote you, "What, specifically, would you like me to have done about the attempted Trump assassination?"
I gave you a list, of :
- The week of July 13th 2023, write a significant post in the Butler shooting thread here, criticizing the progressive mainstreaming of eliminationist and violent rhetoric.
- This week, resting your argument on whether something happened, instead of covering your ass with whether you remembered something happening.
- Or, if not that, at least not move the goalposts from "When that happens, the Blues are not going to want to tolerate it, and the Reds are not going to accept an abrupt demand for a return to order and decorum." and "Someone comes in here and says The Culture War has Gone Too Far, we have to get a handle on the violence guys, sure things happened in the past, but now it's serious, it's time to crack down on the hate and radicalism!" to "no one [here] thought it was no big deal or worse, something to be encouraged" (and now "I think political violence is bad all around and I think most sane (not-on-the-Internet) people agree.")
This is why I often find the barrage of accusations you throw at me disingenuous. This is why I often find the barrage of accusations you throw at me disingenuous. I do not claim history started yesterday or claim things "shouldn't matter."
No, you just complain every single time I highlight past events or failures of past predictions. That's why I didn't say you'd claimed history started yesterday or things "shouldn't matter" ; it's why I asked whether we're "supposed to pretend history started yesterday" or "why it shouldn't matter". What reason does it not count that the subreddit that promoted itself on the importance of appealing to anti-violence blue tribers both couldn't find more than a dozen such posters and can't spare comment on one of several political assassination attempts? Are you ever going to explain why "harping on a dead subreddit" is wrong, or even engage with the matter, or is this yet another dodge?
I disagree with @FCfromSCC that we are at a point where there is no longer a norm against political violence, that this norm was destroyed by Blues, or that Blues in general are pro-assassination. I believe him that he encounters Blues on the regular who say things like this. If you say you do, I will take your word for it. While I probably am in a much more Blue bubble than him, I don't encounter them that often but it does happen. I think political violence is bad all around and I think most sane (not-on-the-Internet) people agree.
And you're still not engaging with FcFromSSC's literal words, instead of throwing the goalposts out a third story window. "[A] precedent is being set here for the level of background violence "we" are supposed to tolerate, but that standard is being set largely by social institutions that are predominantly Blue and are sympathetic to Blue violence. At some point in the not-to-distant future, I think it is likely that it will be Reds committing the sporadic violence. When that happens, the Blues are not going to want to tolerate it, and the Reds are not going to accept an abrupt demand for a return to order and decorum."
Speaking of hard to parse, I don't know what "recent old" argument means; you could be talking about something I posted last week or something I posted back on reddit.
I am specifically trying to avoid linking to one of the many, many previous arguments that we've had, since you've complained about three-year-old and three-month-old ones. If you really want me to select the most prominent and relevant one, I can, but my point here is that this is a broader problem than just you dodging any deeper criticism than "it's fucked", sometimes.
I am sure you know I did not literally mean that zero Blues in the entire world have ever expressed sympathy with the would-be Trump assassin except on TikTok. So when I mention yes, I have encountered a few elsewhere, you act like this is a gotcha. Come on.
Which is why I didn't accuse you of literally meaning zero Blues in the entire world ever did that (contrast "like this was only a problem in one website that doesn't really count"). It's a gotcha that you constantly use this sort of phrasing to minimize bad behaviors by Blues, even if it would have been more serious engagement with the actual post to admit it happens but you challenge it.
I don't really think you want to go Kulak either, you just seem pretty sympathetic to the argument that Blues have it coming.
No. My claim -- and I think FCfromSSC's -- is that enough Blues have completely abandoned any serious attempt at establishing neutral, consistent rules of behavior that are enforced consistently against even their own that any appeal to such rules is completely laughable to Reds, but being a hypocrite isn't a capital crime. The problem is that deserve has nothing to do with it; Reds are, with reason, going to laugh at any Blue overtures toward past norms, and they're going to have absolutely no trust that any newly-created rules will hold more than immediate scenario in question.
It doesn't matter if the Blue in question genuinely was really principled in the past, or even if they personally have records of it -- although I'll point out again we don't here for anyone but ChrisPratt. It may well be very unfair, in those circumstances. It's still going to happen.
If Trace has failed to condemn the Trump assassination with sufficient vigor or you think he and Matt Yglesias and the SPLC only condemn rightist violence, fair enough, you can hold that against them, but I don't think it's remotely the same as actively advocating for violence.
Did I say "remotely the same"? No, I said they're both bad. For clarity, in words you might prefer, that "both advocating violence and refusing to condemn violence are bad".
This is why I keep nailing down your 'hyperbole' or rephrasings or turns of phrase; because we quite rapidly get into these debates where you try to swap my positions into something randomly and unbelievably -- literally that you "cannot believe you're serious" -- instead of what my literal words were, right above you, in your own blockquotes.
I don't think it's an indictment of society that a fairly milquetoast centrist like Trace has attracted a modest following and your feeling so seems to be purely based on your long-standing grudge.
You're the one that highlighted his "modest following" on Twitter, but besides that, try reading that whole sentence, not just the part you like. "I think it's actually a pretty serious indictment of society in general that they are getting anywhere near the coverage that they are, while anyone that really cares at best gets shoved into some third-rate Red Tribe rag." I would really like deradicalizing and deescalating efforts to exist! I would like them to be recognized, and popular, and available and appealing to both sides of the political aisle. In a world where they did... well, I'd still be disappointed, but I can live with disappointment.
But the Litany of Tarsi wins.
We don't have those things. I'll point out that you could counter this whole argument by highlighting a mere handful of such groups -- that "Do you have some better example?" wasn't sarcastic -- and you haven't, and I don't think you can. We just have people deluding others and maybe themselves.
I specifically said I don't remember, because I was pretty sure you'd post a link to something a banned troll said once.
Yep. I'd have linked two or more of I didn't have a class of students starting in ten minutes. The difference between didn't happen and don't remember it happening is kinda the point.
(And color me unsurprised your mad hate for Trace has you still harping on a nearly dead subreddit years later.)
Yes, I'm rather titchy about the people who dressed themselves as paragons of Respect, Truth, and Peace, then instead grew up to throw around words like "moronic", are quite proud of 'pranking' into the epistemic waters or promoting Matt Yglesias, and not only can't find any reason to comment on attempted political assassinations or a guy getting beaten to death for political protest, but didn't wrangle up anyone who'd have a burning need to do so.
Do you have some better example? Going to explain why it shouldn't matter? Or are we just supposed to pretend history started yesterday?
Two years ago I told ChrisPratt that it's a problem that "Yet there's no TracingWoodgrains the news network; I don't think there's even a TracingWoodgrains the famous news caster." If it turns out that there's not actually a TracingWoodgrains the Redditor, on this topic, what am I supposed to be pointing at instead?
I don't know if this is a dig at me or at the Schism or Blues in general.
Blues in general. If it were just you doing it, I'd throw another reference to a recent post of yours. If it were just some people doing it, this wouldn't be a problem. Even if it were just the people here doing it, it wouldn't be a problem.
What, specifically, would you like me to have done about the attempted Trump assassination?
In the narrow sense, not try to hide a falsifiable and meaningful claim (did anyone here do X) behind a unfalsifiable and meaningless one (do you personally remember anyone here doing X). In the shallow one, it'd have been embarrassing for me if I'd had opened that link to the Butler shooting thread, and there was a big Amadan post talking about how this contextualized and heightened their concerns about political radicalization on the left, and I'd have liked to be embarrassed. I guess ChrisPratt tried? In the I'm-going-to-be-repetitive-and-obnoxious sense because dodging this matters here like every other time before, I'd have liked you to not moved the goalposts from FCFromSSC's "sure things happened in the past" to your own "no one thought it was no big deal or worse, something to be encouraged."
If I tell you that indeed, I have gotten into fights (and been blocked/defriended) for arguing with lefties about how fucked up it is to cheer on political violence directed against people we don't like, I assume you will not believe me because I'm not giving you links so you can enlarge your dossier on me. *
I'm sorry that you had that sort of encounter, and I give my sympathies and empathy if you lost friends over it.
I do, yes, think it would be stronger if you had something you could actually show, or a reference here contemporaneous to it happening instead of suddenly revealing under challenge, or if you didn't duck from 'it doesn't happen in real life' to 'a small number' where 'most' of your friends didn't agree, but again if it were just you I'd just be throwing a reference to a recent old argument.
More critically, I think it would have been stronger to start with that, than to start with "TikTok screamers" like this was only a problem in one website that doesn't really count.
You and FC are claiming Blues basically don't care about political violence until it touches them, and then they'll cry real loud about it. I think every tribe cares a lot more about their own side being hurt and the degree to which they object to violence done to the other side depends on how opposed they are on principle to political violence and suppressing other people's rights.
No, I think that one tribe makes very very loud noises about how they are opposed on principle to political violence and suppressing other people's rights, all the time. They just don't act on that principle.
On the extreme side, the SLPC isn't shutting up about subtle threats motivating violence; they're just spending time focused on "male supremacy". (bonus points: did you know their podcast Apathy Isn't An Option? Betcha it doesn't have anything on this topic in a week!). Nina Jankowicz didn't crawl under a rock to surface in seven years time; she's quite happily promoting her brand and will never, ever, ever mention Tom Fletcher.
But if those are the nutjobs, where are the sane, reasonable ones? ChrisPratt tried after the Butler County attempt, but he's an army of one: most of the time people had literally nothing to say. What person terrified by the ultimatium thrown at Harvard yesterday ever spoke against Harvard-affiliated orgs doxxing Red Tribers? I'm not demanding that we find one individual that has such an opinion on all broad topics, or even that we find anyone willing to answer every single offense ever, but I'm feeling a lot closer to Diogenes than Lot, right now.
The popularity of Trace on X gives me some hope, the popularity of Kulak gives me less. I suppose for you those values are reversed.
... I am going to be very, very polite here, because my first reaction to this bit involved profanity. I am not a KulakRevolt fan. I have never been a KulakRevolt fan. I have specifically highlighted him -- well before he went completely off the deep end and got braincored by Twitter! -- as an example of the sort of problem that actually contains what you and yours falsely accuse FCfromSSC or I of.
No. I think both the guy promoting rando violence, and the guy who says he hates rando violence enough to split apart communities for (banned!) comments, but only really can write about it when it's against his side are both bad, and I think it's actually a pretty serious indictment of society in general that they are getting anywhere near the coverage that they are, while anyone that really cares at best gets shoved into some third-rate Red Tribe rag.
gattsuru
23d ago
I'm going to start off by saying that I am glad you wrote that, and I am glad that it got a QC. I'm glad that Impassionata got banned then, and last week, and whenever theschism mods get tired of it and finally banned Imp permanently I'll be glad -- and I don't often favor bans.
But I'm going to point out that it specifically in response to claims of 'right-wing' 'fascist' violence supposedly incited by Red Tribers, in 2023 long after BLM had ebbed; it does not name Red Tribers that were hit (excepting arguably a rhetorical flourish about police stations), but neighbors and friends.
((It's also an example that predates two of the three assassination attempts I'm commenting on, and doesn't mention the third.))
Contra expectations, I don't keep an encyclopedic assembly of every poster on every ratadj forum, and the good reddit search is down. Maybe I've missed something you've said elsewhere; maybe you weren't active at the right times; maybe you just didn't have a great opportunity. But understand why this is more an example of FCfromSSC's point than a counter.
gattsuru
23d ago
That's fair. Do you have an example of a community that is a) left-leaning, b) claims to be fundamentally opposed to political violence in all forms, and c) exists?
gattsuru
23d ago
Ah, if you've got a familiar mentor, it's less serious a problem. I'd still recommend putting your root directory and home directory on different partitions (in a laptop) or even drives (on a desktop), but almost all serious issues are pretty solvable with a familiar expert.
gattsuru
24d ago
On one hand, anyone is a broad term. But they probably don't count.
More seriously, The Schism had less commentary on all three assassination attempts combined, between Trump and Kavanaugh, in an entire year, than it spent debating whether Trump was fascist in a single week before the 2024 election. (answer: of course, it's just a matter of how fascist). Tesla arsons, Paul Kessler, new phone who dis?
That's the subreddit that came into existence because people here didn't downvote a post FCfromSSC ate a ban over hard enough about advocacy of violence. Maybe direct advocacy is not universal among Blue Tribers (though I'll point again to Ken White or my tumblr feed and its regular DenyDefendDepose fandom), and maybe it's not here (modulo whenever Impassionata makes their next alt), but they don't care enough to comment on it; does anyone think there's a Blue Tribe locale that's going to be any stronger?
But the existence of guillotine tumblr is besides the point: conflating universal advocacy with the limited loud disavowal is still comes across as a dramatic move of the goalposts.
The problem's going to come about the next time that Blue Tribers want Red Tribers to care about this sorta violence aimed at Blues, and everyone involved promises that they've got examples somewhere, just left them in their other pants. The Blue Tribers might well have genuinely opposed it at a deep level, personally. Just, you know, not enough to do anything, or even hear about it.
This isn't some purely theoretical example, nor one specific to political violence. But it's particularly severe, here.
gattsuru
24d ago
I have a big breakdown here for both disto recs and general tips and tricks, and I'll stand by it. I'm running an arch hypr variant, and it's a good learning experience and looks great, but it's not really ideal as a daily driver or for people that are not techies -- Linux Mint, Ubuntu, or even Elementary/Zorin will probably be better experiences your first time around.
It's very hard to break things irreparably with Linux, but it's unfortunately easier-than-Windows to get your machine into a state where a fresh install will be easier than cleaning things up. Manjaro is okay, but I will caution that if you aren't into tech (commandline) debugging it will quite happily let you get into goofy states. Even moreso than in Windows world, having a good backup setup is very important.
If you're planning to dual-boot, I strongly recommend increasing the size of your EFI partition to 200MB-500MB. It's not often an issue, but it's a lot less painful to handle before you've got your whole computer setup.
For gifts for parents, depends a lot on the people.
gattsuru
27d ago
For cutting the strips, I just use an old set of kitchen shears, or even (no-longer-wanted-for-) fabric scissors works. I've yet to see any helping hands that weren't obnoxious and prone to falling apart, so you're going to get about the same quality (and sometimes the same manufacturer) from Harbor Freight, Aliexpress, or Microcenter. Building jigs and using vices can sometimes be more productive, but it's hard to justify for a handful of soldering jobs.
At the risk of adding to the waiting game, I'd consider some heat shrink: 3/4 or 5/8th heat shrink gives a surprising amount of strain relief. If you really want to protect the pads and solder, cutting some heat shrink and filling it with hot glue (or epoxy) before taking a hot air gun or butane torch to it usually leaves them more secure than the wire itself, especially at 18 gauge.
And, yeah, unfortunately, the difference between good silicone wire (or even thermostat wire) and 'hobbyist'-grade 'why is the copper this magnetic' junk is annoying, nevermind what happens if you buy discount and find yourself with steel or aluminum wire.
JFK Jr. wasn’t actually licensed to fly that plane
The US doesn't really have licenses or endorsements for individual small aircraft (or even have that specialized training, with one singular exception, and Jr. had a complex aircraft endorsement, which is the big thing for the Saratoga (albeit for reasons not relevant here: retractable landing gear). The problem was that the man had no Instrument Flight Rules certificate, very little instrument flight experience, and flew in extremely marginal conditions over an area with very poor visual reference, taking off at the very end of civil twilight, with little moonlight, while flying east.
This was arguably legal, and remains so today, but in the same sense that throwing a football while skiing was. Doing so with multiple passengers was unforgivable, especially for a route that could have been covered by car in about five hours, plus or minus the ferry. From contemporaneous AOPA coverage of the incident:
The instructor stated that Kennedy had the ability to fly the airplane without a visible horizon but was not ready for an instrument evaluation as of July 1, 1999, and needed additional training. The CFI observed that he would not have felt comfortable with Kennedy conducting night flight operations on that route and in those weather conditions. On the day of the accident, the CFI offered to accompany them that night but Kennedy replied that "he wanted to do it alone."
This wasn't the 1970s, where spatial disorientation training was solely the providence and concern of fighter pilots, nor was it some unpredictable black swan event. Those do exist, in general aviation; losing a vacuum pump in marginal VMC is Not Fun, and it's literally run with a drive coupling that looks like a McDonald's toy and is a single point of failure. I don't like to speak ill of the dead, and I think 'stupidity' is missing a bit of the more serious failure mode, but it's a very frustrating incident.
I will caveat that on the other side nickel meme re: political assassinations.
I read Robert Caro’s series on LBJ, and a major part of the story is how much LBJ hated the Kennedys, and especially RFK. And Caro hates LBJ, and worships RFK. And reading Caro, I rolled my eyes a lot, at one point he talks about how RFK despised LBJ because LBJ was a liar and RFK had “an essential devotion to truth” or something like that.
It's also kinda hilarious given the overlap in behavior, from modern eyes. We consider massive infidelity today on the same spectrum as LBJ flopping Little Johnson out to prove a point (and LBJ had so many affairs that his wife focused more on where they were serious), but contemporaneously?
I could write just-so stories about how pre-antibiotics and pre- (or given the Catholics, non-) contraceptive spheres made sex a lot less attractive for the women these men were married to, regardless of 'normal' sex drive. Or that the aftermath of WWII's impact on gender relations busted things so broadly that an underclass of unattached women (but a lot of these affairs were with married women! sometimes, as with Monroe, married to other Kennedys!). Or that mistresses (and misters?) and such were long-standing cultural expectations for a long period in certain classes and that the real offense were the emotional stuff -- you do still get a decent amount of this in certain spheres, or cfe the early airforce not-quite-polyamory swinging.
((Maybe we're just getting representation bias, and the horniest motherfuckers in the last hundred years are the only ones whose sexuality gets these sort of writeups.))
But I dunno that any of them are 'real' answers. The tempting bit is to look at Caro instead, not just in finding the contrast from infidelity and honestly different than you or I, but that what he consider 'essential devotion' isn't what you or I would. The contrast isn't LBJ; it's Moses.
Where did he find the time? Given, he was so hot, with so much social proof, that the seduction itself doesn’t seem to have been difficult, but still: keeping them all reasonably happy, keeping track of who they were, finding time to fuck them all? Where did he find the time?
I wonder where they found or find the balls. Money can cover a lot of problems, as can power; affairs that are to mistresses what escorts are to prostitution doesn't completely remove the time complexity, but it drops it down to an 0(3-5).
But much of this was pre-Viagra (approved 1998). No matter how willing the spirit might get, or how much abstention from jorking it might back things up, there's a certain point where the flesh is weak and spongy. Instead:
It was a hectic month for Kennedy, who traveled to Toronto, Louisiana, and Washington, DC — and listed at least one woman’s name on 22 different dates, including 13 consecutive days.
I get that I've got a weird drive, but on the other extreme I know guys who literally optimize their lives and lifestyles for convention orgies, (often don't have to worry as much about refractory periods for it), and have far greater access to willing holes and/or poles willing to meet up for sex and nothing else. Not my thing, but I can definitely understand the Braeburned interest. And they (cw: extremely gay) aren't as heavily sexed as these guys. Like, what the literal fuck.
To be clear, I do applaud you for writing this. It takes some genuinely uncommon courage to admit to a mistake, and it speaks well of your character to do so. No one's immune to being mislead or making error, and I've personally made worse (and dumber) mistakes, including in this forum.
So to the extent I'm making commentary, this is to comment on the Mescales News et all, with an emphasis on the et all. This isn't even the first time people have accused DOGE of killing people via tornado, falsely. Lest I be called out for nutpicking, today, a sitting federal senator accused Trump and DOGE of killing at least two sailors; accusations that DOGE cuts and the Shelton Snowlikes were the real cause of AA5342 or MedJets 056 were endemic even as it became clearer and clearer that it wasn't and couldn't have been. Nor is this specific to Trump: Abbott murdered migrants [even if]https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/13/us/us-mexico-border-drowned-migrants) he needed a time machine to do it, and that's just the one that's been discussed here.
It's clear that they don't really 'believe' it, to the extent someone who worked for Vox can be said to 'believe' anything, but I think that's besides the point. They don't believe the truth, either! That's not what their job is, and even if they're lying because their mouths are moving, you can't assume that anything bad is literally always wrong.
((Going back to the question of Being Wrong, I nearly started writing a bit on the Qatar AF1 donation, and while some of the initial reporting was wrong, not enough of it was for what I wrote to be worth posting.))
There's a bigger question of how we got here, to this. I'm tempted, as always, to point to Palin, where between actions and lawsuits the punchline was written years before Very Rarely Lies was -- Trump or DOGE might well try to sue here, but everyone and their dog (and insurance company) knows that they won't and can't win. Maybe I'm just drawing too big a contrast from previous variants, either on the right or left, where there was at least some motion around hyperbole or figure of speech or schizophrenia, maybe I just missed some of the more clear examples back then.
((Something something USS Maine?))
But this should matter! It's a problem for people like you or I that we have to dig twenty layers deep to find any discussion of Noem's quote that doesn't bury the actual lead -- that the Trump admin is considering whether FEMA's cause could be better served by state-operated grants, rather than just burning the entire concept of disaster response like an ostrich. It's not our fault if we can't tell a hundred percent of the time when facing off against an entire industry that has optimized itself to be persuasive.
But fault's got nothing to do with it.
gattsuru
30d ago
Yeah, that's kinda the core of the problem, here.
There's a lot of arguments in favor of a muscular judiciary, and I've made a good number of them, but we don't have that. SCOTUS hears a tiny number of cases, a fraction of those they do hear either get punts or toothless GVRs, and the normal policy has been to fastidiously avoid interlocutory appeals and triple-check every case for sufficient jurisdiction and mootness, and even on those extremely rare events where they don't skip out completely we still get cases that don't want to make the law clear.
That's what makes this sorta thing gall. I don't think Trump has a particularly strong arg for the AEA stuff, and even if the birthright citizenship history is more complicated than most people think the stare decisis is pretty compelling. But I can name countless other issues, and every single time that the court punts on any situation where there is current and unrecoverable harm and the court hems and haws over the importance of procedural regularity, I'm going to point to this case. And I'm going to have a lot of opportunities to point to this case.
gattsuru
1mo ago
From a legal perspective, requirements to join HOAs are usually set up as contractual requirements on the land, as well as a requirement to pass that onto any further sales of the land. Some created themselves in extant neighborhoods by getting the then-current homeowners to buy in, but these days most are set up by the original land developer and transmit from the first sale on. Courts have invalidated this type of thing in very specific circumstances, but outside of that one context they generally don't like to break real property contract requirements.
That process is, imo, one of the stronger arguments that they can be whitewashed state action: in addition to the dependency on mode of enforcement that Shelley highlighted, land developers can get anything from nod-and-wink permitting favoritism to outright direct grants for setting up HOAs with policies that match whatever the local government wants done.
I'm Not A Fan of them -- there are some reasonable HOAs and some reasonable cause for them like shared facilities maintenance or setting explicit standards of behavior, and there are a tiny portion of actually-voluntary HOAs that don't have such contract requirements. But even the good ones can be pretty easily corrupted by a single neurotic, and a lot were never good to start with. In theory, frustrated homeowners could take over an HOA (or even dissolve it), but in practice the bylaws are set up to make this an incredibly difficult and ponderous thing.
gattsuru
1mo ago
Why consider?
It's a hard question. You're definitely looking at a lot more complexity and, unless you get into PCB manufacturing, a really trustworthy charger can get expensive. In turn, running low voltage inputs into a high multiplier boost converter is generally going to be low efficiency and high-noise. Depends very heavily on your comfort level.
I was a bit freaked out by LiPo watching videos of them burst into flames if they get ruptured. Maybe not something I want to attach to my helmet. But perhaps the issue is just as prevalent with 18650s?
18650s are just a form factor, but expect LiPo unless advertised otherwise. They're a little more resistant to puncture than pouch-style designs, but you're probably going to want a rigid cover regardless, both to protect against impacts, but also to avoid contamination.
Lithium-iron-phosphates are a lot safer and are available in 16850 format -- though they'll still discharge some heat and not-great fumes, even a direct puncture or complete short on a big battery pack won't cause a fire on its own -- but they're more expensive and finding a compatible charger is even more difficult. NiMH are cheaper and more widely available, but they have a much lower cell voltage and are pretty heavy for something to wear when biking.
The irony is my local library and (non-profit, communist) maker space all have 3d printers (multiple, even), but they're always broken.
Yeah, that's definitely a Thing. Especially the lower-end machines are always a battle to keep running.
As such I'm now currently trying to get pieces of acrylic, cutting them to size and seeing how sandwiching the ESP32 etc and wrapping the whole thing in a rubber gasket for light waterproofing works out.
That's definitely an option. I would consider switching to polycarbonate for the final version -- it's a little more obnoxious to cut with a saw (and can't be safely cut in any way involving heat/laser) and scratches easily, but you can bend it cold and it's extremely impact-resistant where even acrylic can shatter with jagged edges. But acrylic's fine for testing.
If you need a really weird shape or very thin gaskets, I'd also point to various automotive gasket makers. They're generally only useful where you have two surfaces being tightly screwed together and won't last for too long if you're repeatedly removing and reattaching things, but especially for rapid prototyping they're a lot faster and easier to work with, and surprisingly cheap (and actually can be purchased in Ace/Menards/Autoshops, even some WalMarts).
The courts have very stupid standards for 'purely' economic harms, since they treat these as if they could always be remedied with money (even if the courts won't or can't issue that money). This was a big deal during a lot of the COVID cases. The arguments for the TRO thus rested pretty heavily on harm to goodwill or reputation that were... not very strong.
((That said, courts are also quite willing to munge on the sides of this norm; the NPR and especially trans military employment TROs are pretty significant in certain senses because they're bent over backwards to depart from this normal rule.))
It's unfortunately likely to be a for-the-case-only sort of thing rather than a serious revival of the non-delegation doctrine, but possibly. That said, I'd put an emphasis on 'possibly'; the focus here rests in an ugly crux on questions that border on political in a law that specifically lay out the approach Congress could and should block it, while Congress hasn't.
Rief is a Trump appointee, although the CIT appointment process tends to make it somewhat less politically loaded than, say, SCOTUS or federal appeals courts.
No, the court specifically finds that the declaration of emergency is not in question in this case:
Instead, the court focused on whether the tariffs were exercised in "exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose." This still comes across as an awkward fit, by my eyes, but it's a different question.
May depend on when you were reading about it. The VOS case was filed relatively late, compared to several other cases filed in other jurisdictions (eg two weeks after the NCLA one), which may impact what extent you heard about it.
Somin's been pushing it pretty heavily at Reason, unsurprisingly given that he's a major booster for the case -- I can't really promote the blog for its legal analysis anymore, but if you want to know what people want the law to be, it's still pretty informative.
More options
Context Copy link