@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

Fact is that most boomers enjoy working around the house. Fixing up odds and ends and getting a perfect green lawn are hobbies not chores.

Part of this may be an age thing. I'm not sure why, but my attitude in the last few years has flipped from "ugh, housework" to "maintaining a nice home for myself and my family is worthwhile in itself." I think it's an age and maturity thing.

first told you how sexist the Olympics were and then let you participate in them as a woman anyway,

I assume because it's 2024 that this competition wasn't in the traditional Olympic athlete (lack of) attire?

Unironically, it seems to me that Mansa Musa would fit well with the other "power and political intrigue" settings in the AC series, although I've only played a couple of the early titles.

plus, weirdly, "political party registration status"

There seems to be an interest, possibly growing, on the center-right in these strictly-neutral laws like the Civil Rights Act and Title IX. They're not without success: a number of male students successfully challenged universities for anti-male bias in applying Obama-era sexual assault investigation policies, there's an ongoing likely-to-succeed suit (props to Trace) involving FAA ATC hiring, and those are just the first examples that come to mind. I've seen at least a few universities explicitly table student motions regarding BDS because the adults in the room are concerned of potential legal trouble (presumably under the Civil Rights Act). It'd be unsurprising to me if a bunch of pro-Israel Jewish academics sue, for example, Columbia over alleged institutional bias in hiring or hostile workplace environments.

Sneaking in political registration presumably enables new fronts in culture lawfare: suddenly a left-leaning institution that uses "algorithms" to sort resumes, college applications, and the like can be taken to task for why their system spits out disparately low numbers of registered Republicans. Is the bias of The Algorithm on social media deprioritizing certain political views? Was this bias intentional? It doesn't matter under a disparate impact standard!

I don't know that I like the law as you've presented it, but I can see where the legislatures are coming from. And in today's political climate, it sadly feels like state-enforced colorblindness is, if anything, a win for my preferred liberal pluralist society, even if my libertarian sympathies disagree.

Although this seems the first example of a truly opt-in class being adopted in this fashion, which might lead to some interesting results if people start registering novel political parties specifically to form a protected class.

‘right to resist’ settler colonialism

I find it difficult to square such a blanket "right to resist" with moral demands that immigration be considered an unalloyed good. I personally don't have a strong opinion in either direction on the issue, but I worry if progressives can't define a coherent reason why violent opposition to [Jewish] refugees fleeing political violence and warfare in 1948 to the Promised Land is acceptable, but opposition to asylum seekers at fleeing political violence and warfare to the Economic Promised Land (America) is completely unjustifiable, then we'll end up with some worse-than-Trump rightist candidate running on a platform of "based 1948 Palestinian immigration policy: more machine guns at the Southern Border" that could be difficult to argue against. And while you can point to how the violence up to and after '48 has been, to a nontrivial extent, mutual, I'm sure populists can drum up enough examples of "immigrants driving up rent, leading to state-sanctioned violence in the form of evictions" or just "immigrant does violent crime" to sway more people than I'm comfortable with. If there is a blanket "right to resist", should that not apply to the Klan's Reconstruction-era actions against Carpetbaggers and Catholic immigrants?

It's not a good platform, and I don't endorse it, but there needs to be a more clear moral principle than "кто, кого?". I don't have a particular line in mind, and I do personally find examples in history where resistance seems justified (I can't really fault the Plains Indians for taking umbrage at westward settlements, or Ukraine's right to defend its internationally-recognized borders), and others where it's not (see the Klan example above), and quite a few more morally ambiguous examples: how many newly-independent nations have used their first autonomous actions to engage in ethnic cleansing their colonial powers were forestalling?

I'm quite willing to listen to other suggestions, but from where I sit, the clearest line seems to be to favor generic liberal pluralism and peaceful coexistence, which probably betrays my most common sentiment on the issue, with an acknowledgement that all states fall short of the platonic ideal there.

When looking at Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, I'm reminded of the 20th century history of the Indian subcontinent, wherein a war drew borders between India and (a combined) Pakistan, which then had a second conflict dividing it into the two Muslim-majority states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. I haven't seen a "three state solution" seriously proposed by anyone in power, but it doesn't seem implausible to me.

In theory, would the classic federal "deprivation of rights under color of law" rules not apply to judges, especially state-level ones? I don't see that as a hugely likely possibility: it's not a hill much of the high-status right, especially the DOJ, wants to die on, and would be a pretty big culture war escalation. But it seems a theoretical option.

In Germany, the BSI is a federal agency tasked with enhancing computer security (except for when they are tasked with breaking computer security).

This sounds like the role NIST plays in the US. But those are also contractually enforced on companies doing business with the government.

To some extent we do live in that world already: your $10 electronic device from Walmart probably already has a click wrap license that you have to accept to use the product. The validity of those is perhaps subject to question, but they aren't, to my knowledge in the US, categorically invalid.

Does that law not equally apply to Protestants? I haven't needed it, but I seem to recall hearing that it did in my jurisdiction a while back.

concerning rise of Anti-Catholic sentiment in The United States

I see where you're coming from, but the history of anti-Catholic animus in the United States isn't short: you could point to reactions to Irish and Italian immigration, or more recently Hispanics. The Klan was, among many other things, anti-Catholic. Things like arson of churches (some Catholic) isn't unheard of even today.

And I say this as not-a-Catholic. On the other hand, we largely seem to have overcome this bias, and few seem worried about Biden's allegiance to the Papacy. This is probably for the better, and IMO a good model of what real integration looks like: I haven't seen any third generation Irish immigrants try to claim victimhood on the basis of Catholicism, which is probably better for society as a whole.

Why is it in bad taste for men to rate women's attractiveness?

It has been my experience that if you show (straight) men a group of women (across anything from a IRL social situation to just a set of headshots), they can pretty reliably sort them quickly by their own metrics of attractiveness. The rankings probably won't be identical, and they could change with interaction, but I bet at any given point most men, even those not looking for partners, are at least aware of who they find the most attractive woman in any given room.

But it's also generally verboten to discuss the rankings themselves in mixed contexts, and even most of the time in male spaces. But I have occasionally been party to discussion of rankings of celebrities. I would be curious of (straight) women think similarly, but I have no real information to go on.

Lab-grown meat has made it surprisingly far given how many people hate it for different reasons

Notably, several countries in Europe (searching tells me France, Italy, and Austria, among others) are also looking to ban lab-grown meat, although their reasoning looks a lot more like the controlled-origin laws from what I can tell. IMO there's something to the "this is how we've always made it" that may merit protection, although I'm personally more ambivalent on the subject. Or the various labeling disputes for the current generation meat substitutes, which I think probably merit clear labeling.

How do I capitalize on the fact that the social fabric is fraying at breakneck speed?

I think this is more complicated than that in terms of market strategy. If anything, my feel for the zeitgeist is that this statement is true, but also that the median (Western) human is becoming acutely aware of this fact and it's starting to change behaviors. More than a few friends, even tech oriented ones, have done things like moving to tight-knit rural communities and taking up growing vegetables and raising chickens.

I don't have huge confidence in this, but I think there may be a groundswell of interest in deliberately investing in social fabric. This could conceivably go badly for tech companies: something like "social media is like alcohol: okay in small amounts, but everybody looks down on that guy that drinks beer for breakfast. Abstaining isn't frowned upon." Although I would be interested in something like Facebook was in 2010 that was primarily focused on actual social connections and not "influencers" or anonymous-ish groups.

There may be some business opportunities for explicitly creating Third Spaces, but what shape new ones would have is much less clear. Most of the general examples of those (gyms, coffee shops, bars) aren't in short supply, but also don't feel like they really are establishing communities anymore (or maybe large chains can't do local culture).

It's funny to me how both sides of the battle of the sexes will endorse the Mike Pence rule, while also mocking the other side for adopting it.

Does it specify which species of bear? Black bears are common in the lower 48, and I've run into them before: I've even heard of people aggressively chasing them off. Not cuddly, but some of them aren't that much bigger than a large adult human. Grizzly and polar bears are much larger and dangerous.

I think the distributions of danger here are relevant: a 99th percentile dangerous human might well be much more dangerous than the equivalent black bear, even if the median black bear doesn't even get seen because it avoids humans. The median human is, I would guess, a net help in a survival situation, or at least tries to do so. In my experience, people evaluate risks like that very differently.

Somewhere in here is a decent joke about cougars in the woods: mountain lions are quite dangerous if they decide to kill you, but so are divorces.

Every single information and/or discussion channel/forum is getting shittier and shittier. I posit that in addition to algorithms maximizing engagement or minimizing whatever, it's also the userbase.

The true old timers will tell you that they wish September '93 would end.

Not that I disagree, but the observation is hardly new, and yet we're nominally still here. I sometimes wonder if it's bias in the observation, but maybe there are objective measurements somewhere.

Abortion was made a constitutional right by first finding a roght to privacy, and then discovering abortion being made illegal violates this right (but only in the first trimester).

It's worth noting that doctor-patient privacy somehow also only extended to abortion, and not, say, to Kevorkian or medical marijuana.

Ah. I would personally agree they're at least different enough to warrant a separate discussion. I was just surprised (and wrong) that a sitting justice today would use that as a hypothetical. Makes more sense now.

Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" of having a common cold.

Who made this argument? I'm not generally of a "it's just like the common cold" take on the pandemic, but I'm assuming a SCOTUS justice would at least see the parallel hypothetical about house arrest for (potentially) having a contagious disease. If nothing else, it seems like an interesting set of tea leaves to read about how future cases might go.

There is a long history of fighting with questionably-motivated conscripts. I'm not convinced individual interest really matters: they seem to either get thrown to the worst fighting on the front, or to quiet rear defensive positions. On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, Vichy French and Norwegian troops didn't see much combat action on behalf of the Axis during WWII.

I think you're right that after two years of brutal fighting, there is too much animosity for that to work today, but early in the current invasion Russia was fielding all the troops they could conscript from separatist regions, so it's not completely out of the question, I think.

These statements aren't strictly contradictory, although both are probably stronger claims than I would make. One lesson I've only recently begun to understand about WWII is that, at the scale of warfare required, seizing territory and, by extension, it's populace, gives fodder for larger armies.

This doesn't come up for discussion of American (or even Commonwealth, really) involvement in the war because the Western Allies weren't conscripting from recently-annexed territory, but the German army was much larger for having conscripted Czech and Austrian soldiers. It's not inconceivable that the same units currently armed by the West could be, after a surrender, rearmed by the Russians and marched west.

The only reason I don't find that situation hugely likely is that I'm pretty sure that most anyone can see that, in the case of a true hot war in Europe that NATO was involved in, the result would be a pretty decisive curb stomping on the scale of Desert Storm. Which is, to my mind, a huge argument for maintaining that technical and armament superiority, and also for Europe to step up their commitment to those alliances.

This is a good point, and I don't really have an answer to the question. Most (but not all) common carrier laws I can think of only require that utilities accept all comers -- AT&T can't deny phone lines to sex ships -- but some also go so far as to define specific performances like service areas -- AT&T doesn't run wire to my house specifically.

It definitely annoys me that "access to the financial system writ large" has become so utterly critical to doing anything useful that it immediately has a totalizing effect on what anybody can do, anywhere in the world, even on the internet.

You're not wrong: despite general libertarian sympathies, I do think there is a role for utility-type regulation in a number of new critical roles that didn't exist a few decades ago. Credit cards and cashless payments are certainly one.

I'd toss out email and online identity infrastructure as another that doesn't get much press: I've come to realize that my dependence on my Gmail account (which I've had since it was an invite-only beta) would be almost impossible to replace. Maybe with a lot of work I could replace it with one provided through Microsoft, but that wouldn't really fix the problem. Practically hosting your own email is basically impossible, from what I can tell, due to spam blocking mechanisms. Given Google's propensity to sunset things (or really, the level of risk of corporate spontaneous failure), I think it'd be a pretty serious crisis if their email and identity servers went down for a day. Or worse, permanently.

I'd point to the common carrier rules for other utilities as a reasonable example of what could be done. I think expanding those to include things like credit card payments and email would be possible. However, those have their own concerns with fraud and such that might prevent applying the existing rules as-is.

but Biden needs the progressive left to win this election

Unironically, I don't think this was true two years ago. If he'd have played Bill Clinton's playbook from the 90s and governed as center-left, I think he could have a high enough approval rating that we wouldn't be taking a rematch of the 2020 election seriously. But it seems, to me at least, that the current administration doesn't want to moderate its positions to appeal to the median voter: I'm hard pressed to think of many cases where it's been willing to push back against progressive partisans.