@johnfabian's banner p

johnfabian


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:31:18 UTC

				

User ID: 859

johnfabian


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 14:31:18 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 859

have you seen Black Mirror? There are a few episodes which brush up against this

Germany: political center (Berlin), legal center (Karlsruhe, weirdly), financial center (Frankfurt), tech hub (Munich)

Some of these are debatable because Germany is extremely decentral

yeah it's nice to get a taste of it every now and then. On the rest of social media it's all degenerate lefties, I need to see some degenerate cons to keep me in balance

I don't think there's a coherent way to pass the Nazis off as left-wing. Yes they were the nSdap but the word "socialism" has forever and always held a flexibility which lets anyone and everyone use it as they please. Hitler's view of "socialism" as a concept was - and I'm only roughly paraphrasing - "if it's good for the Volk, it's socialist." To quote more directly the historian Richard Evans said that Nazism was akin and different to Bolshevism in that racial struggle held primacy instead of class struggle.

civ 5 still has a very active multiplayer community playing lekmod

That was just the style of the '90s nu-metal scene. Yes this was at the end of the '80s but Faith No More was basically proto-90s stylistically. White guys with dreads? That's just what skaters, bums, and layabouts looked like. You never heard of Korn?

See the music video for "Epic" from the first album with Patton. Same style.

I previously sang the praises of Only Connect, my favourite game show. It is now back for series 20, with a brave youtube user evading the BBC censors for us. The first episodes of each new series are generally easier with it ramping up in difficulty towards the end.

I would never claim that poverty has no effect on crime. I think besides being on some intuitive level obvious there are very broad relations one one can see, that go beyond simply that people who commit crimes tend to have the same kind of cognitive impairments that also keep one poor.

But this supposed iron law that crime is purely the product of poverty is something you see repeated everywhere where even the simplest of glances at the correlation can see how patently false that is.

There are people who still desperately cling onto the notion that crime is directly a result of poverty. It is very hard for them to explain how Baltimore (GDP per capita of ~$60k USD) has more murders annually than Italy ($35k).

Oh, Italy also has roughly a 100x larger population (60 million vs 600 thousand). But of course they are famously free of organized crime.

Maybe the real underlying cause is that murder rate is inversely proportional to pizza quality?

Something that had been consistently found in polls was the general perception that both Trump and Biden were weak candidates, and only by virtue of being pitted against each other via inertia were their flaws masked in the predicted election outcomes.

The Democrats were smart (or more accurately, lucky that Biden had such a disastrous performance at the debate) to force their unpopular candidate out first.

Finished the books I was reading about Augustus and the Peloponnesian War. Now I'm reading The Long Price Quartet by Daniel Abraham (he co-wrote The Expanse). Finished the first part and was pleasantly surprised. Enjoying it quite a bit.

Normally people cite this when it comes to these types of recursive logic.

Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion are only two novels because publishers forced it. They're essentially one rather than a book and its sequel. That being said I didn't like Fall nearly as much.

More numerous than any other individual combat arm? Generally, often yes. But in modern professional armies they don't tend to approach a majority. How things might actually play out for conscription-based armies which train most conscripts as light infantry remains to be seen though I suppose.

For the UK (and the Commonwealth countries which largely followed their military organization during WWII) there were two very important deciding factors which relegated infantry to a lesser size than the artillery. Most importantly was the scale of losses during WWI: politically, demographically, economically, whatever lens you looked through they were so high they could not be repeated. That inevitably meant a focus on greater firepower and heavy weapons rather than having infantry carry the burden.

Less importantly aside from the brief fracas in France the initial major land fighting the Brits did was in North Africa when the Germans were roughly on par with the in the air and the desert allowed for fluid maneuvers. This meant more losses to rear-area personnel and so they carried more men and got a higher proportion of trained replacements. This ended up adversely affecting British and Canadian forces in Europe because the decline of German air power and operational maneuver greatly reduced the risk to non-infantry combat arms. There was a persistent shortage of infantrymen throughout 1944 and 1945.

It is important to note that this wasn't some crazy or ineffective idea: artillery was in WWII, like all other modern wars, the main killing power on the battlefield. Certainly if you read German memoirs they are constantly bitter about the total dominance of Western Allied artillery (and air power). In Normandy there was frequent complaining about it being a "rich man's war" because of how badly the Germans were being outshot. Allied artillery command and control was also significantly more sophisticated and was a huge advantage.

Or is there something about the nature of modern combat that means military supply chains require this sort of "socialist" central planning to be effective?

Yes. I'll try to keep this short because I'm meeting a friend in fifteen minutes so I've got to go fast. But with the advent of heavy artillery, planes, tracked vehicles, trucks, etc. the fighting strength of armies have switched rather decisively from individual armed men to the equipment they operate. Because this heavy equipment requires so much fuel, ammunition, maintenance, etc. to operate, this means that the center of gravity (in the Clausewitzian sense) of any army of the 20th or 21st century is in its administrative "rear" and the logistical operations they run. An army separated from its source of supply ceases to become an effective fighting force and has to devote most of its time to somehow surviving, if it can.

This is why the operational and strategic doctrines that emerged during WWII and after focused on creating ways for the mobile forces of your army to target these rear elements. The Soviet or German plan for any great offensive was to figure out the best way to achieve this: usually by creating some kind of breakthrough on a narrow front that your tank/mobile infantry divisions can exploit to get hundreds of kilometres into the enemy rear and target the really important things: railway junctions, bridges, communication nodes, ammo depots, repair yards, slaughterhouses, granaries, oil dumps, etc.

WWII is the period I'm most familiar with but usually armies operated even then with much more rear personnel than those at the front. The Western Allies had a ratio generally of 1:6 frontline infantry/armour:rest of personnel. The Commonwealth forces generally had more artillerymen in a corps than infantry. Germans and Soviets ran more infantry-heavy because they were less mechanized (especially the Germans).

You don't read many memoirs from cooks or artillerymen or tank repairmen because they didn't see much combat, at least among the western Allies. In the more wider-open Eastern Front things were more fluid and the Germans were particularly enthusiastic about pressing administrative personnel and other rear-area types into infantry roles because of desperate manpower shortages. In any case in the mass encirclements that characterized the big offensives in the East it didn't matter what your job was, your life was on the line and everyone had to fight.

How young would the girl have to be before the immorality of the age difference overwhelmed the immorality of the casual sex? You've established an adult man having sex with a 12 year old is morally superior to casual sex with another consenting adult woman. What about a 9 year old? A 6 year old?

why would you pick his sons over Ivanka? It's not like she's popular or anything but at least to me she appears much more mentally with it than either of his adult sons.

This felt less like a prediction and more like a lay-up. I couldn't see any other course of action for the Democrats.

Would Hezbollah have any moral concerns about killing Druze? Are they not viewed somewhat as Muslim apostates?

Partly it has to do with what /u/Rov_Scam pointed out, but I don't think that's the heart of it. Mickelson had long been a fan favourite, the second biggest golfer of the Tiger years, and was playing decently well into his 50s... even won his sixth major in 2021. So for him to jump ship from the tour that had made him a big star felt like a betrayal for people. Especially considering the money involved for his depreciating talent. It's one thing for an up-and-comer to take the big payout; sports careers are unpredictable, you could get a career-ending injury at any time, and lots of golfers simply lose their mojo for no explicable reason. He was also a big instigator of the scheme (he needed to be: big gambling debts!). For a fading older golfer to schism the world of pro golf for his own benefit after decades of being well-loved by the fans and by the prize purses... yeah, people didn't like it.

edit: The other thing to consider is that LIV as a product is just bad. This might all be forgiven if it were equal to or an improvement to the PGA tour in entertainment. It's not. All the changes that have been made to the format (teams, 54 holes, shotgun starts, music, etc.) have made it at various times annoying, crude, stupid, and boring. The talent is there but the players are not competitive. And the viewership as a result is practically non-existent. It exists only as long as the Saudis keep feeling happy about pouring billions of dollars into it per year.

Is this a troll? Golf is one of the most affordable and accessible hobbies you can have, and it's accordingly one of the most popular.

This is very country-dependent. In the UK, Ireland, and certain Commonwealth countries golf is very affordable, bordering on cheap. In the US it is generally affordable, somewhat less so in the south. But in mainland Europe and Asia golf is a sport for the elite.

I never really understood the appeal of golf. Does Trump love the game for what is truly is, or does he love it because it's a rich person sport you can brag about with other rich people that play that sport? Based on his skills and anecdotes, it sounds like he actually is passionate about the sport.

Golf is an endless difficult and rewarding sport. It's a game that just throws endless euphoria and disappointment at you. I love it desperately (I just came back from a holiday where I played golf every day, sometimes multiple times, for two weeks) and I understand why some might not. But Trump loving golf makes a lot of sense to me.

I think this is overstated. DeChambeau isn't really hated, his detractors think he's just more of an annoying kinda weird dude. Mickelson gets more ire, as do the LIV golfers who have generally failed to impress since the move. And of course your wording absolves Patrick Reed from consideration.

Also winning another major does big things for you. Both Koepka and DeChambeau seem fairly well-esteemed to me at the moment, just from idly browsing /r/golf.

Those saccharine smiles in the audience, that praise him as being an American hero, smiling as they stab him in the back. Ugly.

It's not stabbing Grandpa in the back to take away his car keys. It might feel like a betrayal, but it's for the best.

For larger massacres, generally. But lots of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers had their surrenders not-so-politely declined; this was sort of glossed over in the post-war official histories but appear frequently in AARs. Also as Ioper notes due to the influx of draftees and soldiers from other branches into the Waffen-SS (whose units were almost always subordinated or OKH or OKW) just because someone was in the SS doesn't mean they were SS.