netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
netstack
Texas is freedom land
6hr ago
You’re kind of touching on two questions.
The thing about images is that the map is not the territory. Concerns like pixels—resolution—only sneak in to quantify the limits of that map.
A mathematical construct like the Fourier transform doesn’t have that problem. The transform of a pure sine wave is the Platonic ideal of a pair of points. But you can’t make such a pair out of samples. You’re forced to approximate, which gives you a resolution.
So question 1 is “do we have a map to quantify smell?” The answer is yes, but no one can agree which is best. Here’s a more recent study which has a bunch of cool charts showing the perceptual space. There’s also the classic OChem Smells Chart.
Question 2 is how good the resolution is for any of these models. For sound and sight, we’ve done experiments to identify how small of a difference can be recognized. Presumably, something similar has been tried in the smell literature. In theory, you could use one of the Question 1 schema to choose several components of smell. Say “edibility,” “temperature,” and “irritation.” Then test different substances on each axis to estimate resolution. That’d give you a map of possible, distinguishable smells.
I’m going to be lazy and assume the same is true for taste.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
9hr ago
netstack
Texas is freedom land
10hr ago
@self_made_human goes into more depth than I would, but his general point is sound: people say a bunch of eye-watering awful shit in the comments, and it’s not always worth policing. The further down in a conversation we go, the more likely that there’s context which we missed. Especially when sarcasm or hypotheticals are involved.
We’ve got at least one user who will report anything and everything shorter than two sentences as low-effort. Doesn’t matter if it’s five levels down in a conversation, or if the parent asked a yes/no question. That’s the rule which gets the most leniency based on depth, since there are lots of good reasons to have a short answer.
boo-outgroup or antagonism…well, it’s a lot harder to find an excuse for that. I’d have modded this particular one wherever it showed up. But I suspect I’ve already earned a reputation as a party pooper.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
10hr ago
Nietzsche specifically calls out Judaism as slave morality. Or, uh…
\195. The Jews—a people "born for slavery," as Tacitus and the whole ancient world say of them; "the chosen people among the nations," as they themselves say and believe—the Jews performed the miracle of the inversion of valuations, by means of which life on earth obtained a new and dangerous charm for a couple of millenniums. Their prophets fused into one the expressions "rich," "godless," "wicked," "violent," "sensual," and for the first time coined the word "world" as a term of reproach. In this inversion of valuations (in which is also included the use of the word "poor" as synonymous with "saint" and "friend") the significance of the Jewish people is to be found; it is with THEM that the SLAVE-INSURRECTION IN MORALS commences.
“Slave morality” describes a set of values, not a methodology. So Christianity and Judaism are both perfectly capable of dominating their surroundings. They just do so by convincing people that suffering is moral. This is an incredible competitive advantage against “master” moralities, which lack leverage on the have-nots.
Islam is a good example of how this gets weaponized. The general concept of jihad—struggle—fits slave morality. Fighting the good fight is supposed to be hard. More specifically, martyrdom for eternal rather than temporal reward is textbook slave morality. I’d argue that Western coverage of Islam in the GWoT era actually centers on eroding that moral high ground, mocking its abstract rewards to make them seem base and worldly. 72 virgins, huh?
But I digress. Nietzsche observes that slave morality wins, citing Judaism as well as Christianity. They won using their inverted morals, not in spite of them.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
11hr ago
That’s different than Nietzsche's use of the term. “Slave morality” lionizes the underdog, but it doesn’t have to be passive at all.
“Enlightenment” causes revolt, for the slave desires the unconditioned, he understands nothing but the tyrannous, even in morals, he loves as he hates, without NUANCE, to the very depths, to the point of pain, to the point of sickness—his many HIDDEN sufferings make him revolt against the noble taste which seems to DENY suffering. The skepticism with regard to suffering, fundamentally only an attitude of aristocratic morality, was not the least of the causes, also, of the last great slave-insurrection which began with the French Revolution.
Beyond Good and Evil, III.46
netstack
Texas is freedom land
11hr ago
How does Christianity map to wokeness? Outside of the cheems mindset slave morality.
It’s not the monotheism, or anything resembling belief in an almighty God. No equivalent to the Trinity. No miracles, no message of salvation.
If wokeness has none of the cosmology, mythology, or eschatology, what’s left?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
Conscription is evidence against, but it's not the whole story.
People don't want to do military service even when they agree with the cause and want someone to stay in the fight. Ukraine had an army of 40% conscripts back in 2013 with no trenches in sight.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
The laws do have to improve the situation, thanks to jurisprudence about "narrow tailoring" and "compelling public interest." Here's the full exchange in question (pp. 52-56):
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: You've said several times that it's a difficult policy question, a complicated policy question. I think everyone would agree with that.
How does this law help deal with the complicated policy issues?
MS. EVANGELIS: One of the most difficult challenges is getting people the help that they need. And laws like this allow cities to intervene, and they're an important tool in helping incentivize people to accept shelter.
So Ms. Johnson, for example, had said in her deposition -- it's in the Joint Appendix -- that she does not wish to stay at the Gospel Rescue Mission. One of the reasons is because of her dog. She also had other reasons. She doesn't like being around people and -- and so forth. People have all sorts of circumstances. It's very complex. And the individual decisions --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How does it help if there are not -- how does it help -- the rule here, the law here, how does it help if there are not enough beds for the number of homeless people in the jurisdiction?
MS. EVANGELIS: So, for Ms. Johnson, she sometimes stays with a friend. So there are other --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How about more -- more generally, though?
MS. EVANGELIS: Yes.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I guess, if there's a mismatch between the number of beds available in shelters, even including Gospel Rescue, and the number of homeless people, there are going to be a certain number of people who there's nowhere to go?
MS. EVANGELIS: That -- that is a difficult policy question. And we --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How does this law deal --
MS. EVANGELIS: Yes.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: -- help with that policy?
MS. EVANGELIS: So it encourages people to accept alternatives when they come up so that fewer people end up camping. It also -- there is harm in simply camping. Whatever materials people are using when they are living in public spaces without plumbing and infrastructure, there's harm to the whole city and to the whole community, as well as to them.
We know that -- that encampments and these conditions also breed crime and very dangerous conditions. So the City has an interest in protecting everyone, including --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Do you think the constitutional rule should be different when the number of beds available in the jurisdiction exceeds the number of homeless people versus the number of homeless people exceeds the number of beds available in shelters?
MS. EVANGELIS: No. That's what we've seen in the Ninth Circuit. We've seen that that is unworkable. There is no way to count what beds are available and who is perhaps willing to take one and who would consider it adequate.
Then the question becomes, are those beds adequate? So, here, Gospel Rescue Mission again --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: That's a separate issue, I agree.
...
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I actually have one last question. When you get out of jail if you end up -- what's going to happen then? Aren't -- you still don't have a bed available. So how does this help?
MS. EVANGELIS: So the -- and -- and I want -- I do want to make a point about that -- about the criminal aspect. The trespass law here is only triggered after several civil citations.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Right. No.
MS. EVANGELIS: And at that point --
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: If you run through that cycle --
MS. EVANGELIS: Yes.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: -- and you end up in jail for 30 days, then you get out, I mean, you're not going to be any better off than you were before in finding a bed if there aren't -- going to my earlier question, if there aren't beds available in the jurisdiction, unless you're removed from the jurisdiction or you decide to -- to leave somehow.
MS. EVANGELIS: No. There are services available, and the jurisdiction can put you in touch with services and programs to help you in those circumstances. And for many people, that is a point where they're able to get into treatment. So that intervention actually saves lives.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. Thank you.
Kavanaugh is pushing on the Petitioners' insistence that their law helps solve the problem. Obviously, it does help them in many cases. So he pushes on the rock-and-hard-place situation in which the city's preferred intervention is unavailable. As I understand it, this was a big part of the 9th Circuit ruling, since it basically invented a regulatory regime for availability, and no one was happy with it. He touches on the same subject later with Kneedler when they're discussing whether the Court needs to address Robinson at all (p. 112). He doesn't draw conclusions in the transcript, but I can guess how Kavanaugh feels about volunteering the courts to micromanage local policy.
The Petitioners emphasize that their policy should help. The Respondents address edge cases where it won't. Kavanaugh explores that, as did several of the other justices, because this is law and lawyers love edge cases. If he votes to keep the 9th decision and strike down the ordinance, I don't think it'll be driven by his bleeding heart.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Man, I dunno what happened here, but chill out.
One day ban.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Still a professional word-wrangler. Still funny to hear him tongue-tied.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Why do you think it’s misplaced sympathy and not, I dunno, doing their jobs?
Surely it’s not just because they’ve disagreed with your intuition.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
I was commenting on the Kagan/Evangelis exchange which you quoted. It was specifically about distinguishing status from conduct. Was that not what you wanted to talk about? I can move on to the rest, I suppose.
New Correct Lefty Science
To be clear, I read this epithet as referring to Corkran’s claim that a person can’t go from addiction to non-addiction. My phone won’t let me quote from PDF, but there’s a relevant passage on page 38. Evangelis argued that homelessness, due to its mutability, does not fit Robinson’s definition of a status. It’s exactly what Corkran was trying to rebut when you quoted her. Clearly, the whole court and both parties are interested in the bounds of this category.
I couldn’t actually figure out where mutability came into play. The Robinson opinion doesn’t mention anything like it, but it could be in oral arguments. As best as I can figure, it has something to do with short-term or automatic changes. But I digress.
So at what point did this become “lefty science”? When Evangelis conceded it before arguing homelessness was different? When Corkran asserted it before insisting homelessness was the same? When Jackson, whom I assume you think is a partisan hack, asked for clarification?
I think all of those options are stupid. They’re clearly arguing about something with a little more nuance than “can things change at all.” Ignoring that to dunk on unspecified lefties is playing an entirely different status game.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
In the abstract sense of complicity that you’re using? Quite a few. So long as they keep doing it, I’m willing to be an enabler.
Yes, I do think conscription pushes the balance in favor of surrender. No, I don’t think it’s obvious that the modal Ukrainian soldier no longer wishes to risk death.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
That’s from Robinson v. CA, so…Justice Potter Stewart, d.1985.
I don’t think quarantines fit the bill. In theory, they criminalize the conduct of going somewhere while (potentially) having such a disease, which is distinct from criminalizing the disease itself. Note that in Robinson the man arrested was expressly not taking any unusual actions.
In practice, did any of the lockdown ordinances actually threaten prison? I know there were enforced business shutdowns, presumably enforced via fines. I didn’t live somewhere which actually kept you in your house.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
In this Court counsel for the State recognized that narcotic addiction is an illness. Indeed, it is apparently an illness which may be contracted innocently or involuntarily. We hold that a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted as a criminal, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be sure, imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual. But the question cannot be considered in the abstract. Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" of having a common cold.
I think the proportionality argument is pretty solid, even though it doesn’t give us a hard limit.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Man, I really enjoyed the summary, especially Gorsuch reducing a professional to a stammering mess. Warms the soul.
Then you had to go and ruin it by tilting at this weird caricature of “New Lefty Science” and “the Lefties That Be.” Have you considered that maybe people you don’t like can be right?
- Sotomayor asks: if this ordinance is not applied to people who are incidentally sleeping outside, but only if the police think they have no home address, is it really legalizing conduct?
- Kagan adds that enforcement rests on having a home, which is a status, not a conduct.
- Evangelis counters that Robinson featured no actus reus, but this situation does: camping. Or really sleeping outside, due to the specifics of the injunction.
- Jackson reasons that if you’re relying on the act of sleeping, then you are touching on a “basic function”. And that’s what gets proportionality protections from the 8th.
- Evangelis avoids a follow-up about eating in public by arguing that a “necessity defense” would come up before the 8th.
- After some going around in circles, Roberts shelves the subject.
Which part of this do you have a problem with? Because it looks, to me, like a legitimate debate over the limits of the 8th. The hypotheticals are relevant. The questions are clear. No digressions about historical richness or other sources of vibes. Just “why is this different from Robinson?”
I will try to review more of the summary later. So far, I don’t see what you’re so sarcastic about.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
No, it doesn’t.
I’ve laid out the case for deterrence before. That only requires Russia to think they can succeed quickly and easily. Correcting their estimate is valuable.
In the world where we refused to supply any of them, Russia could exert power over its NATO neighbors.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Texans like to complain about the influx of Californians. But the driver is the traffic.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Texas HB 1181 was passed near-unanimously. It contained two requirements for porn sites: age verification, and a surgeon-general style warning. Nothing about payments.
There’s clearly some interest in suppressing pornography. While I can’t say whether they provided MasterCard or Visa with the impetus, I expect they would endorse payment processors’ restrictions.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Banning obscenity and vice are two very popular pastimes.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Less antagonistic, please.
You can make this observation—it sure does look like that was already implied by MartianNight—without turning up the heat.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
I was using it in response to the OP. That tweet just says “fracturing,” so I’m not 100% sure what distinguishes it from Balkanization, siloing, or walled gardens.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Sorry, I was using it as a generic Eastern Bloc stand-in. Really, any of the smaller countries. I don’t know the legal mechanism, but torrent or vice sites are stereotypically hosted on these more permissive domains. Kind of like how sci-hub.se currently has .ru and .st mirrors.
Ain’t nothing natural about this feedback. A is taking a trip into weird corners of the psyche even before B starts pulling the rug.
The converse is when people talk about social media as addictive, promoting gambling, and so on. It’s a crazy artificial environment we hooked up in pursuit of…cred. Money. Connection? Weirdness should be the default assumption.
More options
Context Copy link