site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   2858 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 21, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Was the ancient German binge-drinking culture eugenic, insofar as antisocial tendencies were brought to light when inebriated and lead to loss of status, and irrationality and poor-self control were amplified when inebriated and resulted in a higher death rate in those with these traits? I’m thinking in terms of Tacitus’ Germania:

Drinking-bouts lasting all day and all night are not considered in any way disgraceful. The quarrels that inevitably arise over the cups are seldom settled merely by hard words, but more often by killing and wounding. Nevertheless, they often make a feast an occasion for discussing such affairs as the ending of feuds, the arrangement of marriage alliances, the adoption of chiefs, and even questions of peace or war. At no other time, they think, is the heart so open to sincere feelings or so quick to warm to noble sentiments. The Germans are not cunning or sophisticated enough to refrain from blurting out their inmost thoughts in the freedom of festive surroundings, so that every man's soul is laid completely bare. On the following day the subject is reconsidered, and thus due account is taken of both occasions. They debate when they are incapable of presence [sober thought] but reserve their decision for a time when they cannot well make a mistake.

If so, it may be the most interesting way to select traits in a population.

What was the actual alcohol content of the alcohol they were drinking? Wasn’t beer back then like 2% abv? Even the Romans themselves diluted their wine until it was 3-5% according to many estimates.

It’s quite possible they were drinking “all day” and yet still much less drunk than a modern drunk (or college student) drinking 80 proof vodka.

They debate when they are incapable of presence [sober thought] but reserve their decision for a time when they cannot well make a mistake.

This is also not an uncommon trope for Greeks/Romans discussing barbarians. I believe Herodotus says something similar of the Persians. Really, it's a pretty common thing across cultures, to discuss real talk over drinks and then finalize the next day, a surprising number of business deals get settled like that (and a lot more were back in the Mad Men days).

This is a dumb "question" I'm just flabbergasted in a low key situation. Going to Mexico for my wife's friend's wedding. Taking my small kids, gonna be something...

Happens to be down in Mexico for Mexico's first World Cup knock out match. I don't like soccer it's for the poor's but this is falls under "few in a life time opportunities" in my mind. The one guy I kind of know on the trip turned me down going out to watch the game (at a bar, or sport garden) because he hates crowds and sports. I've always struggled not to judge this guy as a loser (sulks around and whines a lot), this really doesn't help. Literally I don't think any other person I know would turn down an invite like this. Am I being too harsh?

he hates crowds and sports

sulks around and whines a lot

Are you sure he isn't dealing with subclinical depression? It's a bit of a bad look when your reaction is to go on an internet forum to call him a loser and a weirdo and talk about how you earned your coolness. I would say just use it as an opportunity to be grateful for your own blessings instead of knocking down on someone else.

To be clear this is "going to a sports bar or whatever" not "dropping $$$ on tickets" correct?

I'd agree with you broadly and I think the guy hating sports ball or crowd anxiety is a weirdo showing his ass here. High stakes soccer is maybe the easiest sport to watch and enjoy.

That said, the one thing I'd point out is Pence Rule related stuff around foreign travel and going out to bars could come into play.

Yeah, sports bar or one of the bars on the beach. This specific beach town is known for being safe. We will be visiting bars outside of this frequently.

Then I agree with you completely. It is 100% normal and social for a couple guys to say "Hey let's get away from our families and watch the game and grab a beer." I frequently do that with brother in law at holidays at my in laws, hey let's go to a bar and hang out and watch the finals. With the subtext being, let's get away from the family for a bit and be guys. A guy who doesn't want to do that is kinda subnormal in masculinity in my mind.

Though I offer the Pence Rule exception because I can think of a couple of guys off the top of my head who are on the kind of marital probation where they would say no to going to a bar without their wife.

And Lord, I hope the people in this thread saying "you have kids why are you watching a soccer game in your free time" don't come for me next year.

A few years ago my Swiftie cousin's boyfriend sent out a group text asking if anyone wanted to go to Taylor Swift trivia at a local brewery. I was the only guy who showed up and when he asked me why I said"you had me at brewery". I could understand not wanting to go out to watch a game you had no interest in under normal circumstances, but I can't see doing that if I'm out of town for a wedding, especially if the alternative is hanging out in the hotel or worse, going shopping with the ladies.

Got all kinds of thoughts around that stuff, if wife is breastfeeding a new born, and the kid's being a hard ass, it may be constant grind to keep everyone's head above water. I'm blessed and my kids are great sleepers and usually chill. My wife admits I do more than my fair share of work around the house so I've got no qualms taking a few hours for myself every now and then. Most of the time I take the toddler with me because he's a cool guy. When he's old enough to comprehend making sure he fully understands the trade-offs concerning the choices he makes is a reason I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff.

Is there a cost factor to it?

I'm near one of the stadium locations. I'm not really that into soccer, but I might be inclined to check out a game just for the novelty factor of it. But then, the cheapest tickets are currently ~$1400, plus probably a few hundred more in incidentals, like transportation, food, drinks, etc. That's a bit above what I'm willing to spend to check out something I'm not super into. Maybe like $50-100ish for that.

If you're not all pretty wealthy, that could generate some conflict over who's paying for who, who can really afford that, does anybody owe anyone else anything, etc.

Were talking about going to a bar. I was in Vegas for one of the Stanley Cup matches and I'm thankful the event I was there for overlapped the game because would have been a debate whether or not to drop the money.

I mean, how close-knit a group is it? If I were going with my SO, who I know is significantly more into spectator sports than I am, and she pushed me to, I would grit my teeth and go. If it were a big group of people who vaguely know each other, and some guy in the group who I "kind of know" asked me, even if he had nobody else to go with - yeah, I would wiggle out with an excuse. It's not like he can't go to the game by himself! Maybe he will even make some like-minded friends there.

To pass something like normative judgement, you really have to disentangle the question:

  • How unreasonable do you think is it to generally dislike spectator sports (at least in person)?

  • If you dislike them as above, how unreasonable do you think is it to not go to one anyway when such a "few in a life time opportunity" presents itself?

  • If you are unswayed by the opportunity as above, how unreasonable is it to refuse to "take one for the team" and go to make it easier for another person who really wants to go to do so? How does this depend on the degree of familiarity with the other person, and how much worse off they would be if you refuse?

  • How unreasonable do the three things above have to get before it becomes reasonable for you (the other person) to exercise some form of social pressure to punish them for defecting?

He’s the husband of my wife’s best friend. I went to his wedding, helped his soon-to-be sister-in-law move with him, and I’m obviously going to his sister-in-law’s wedding. My own wedding was held at his in-laws’ house. His father-in-law just texted me late last night inviting me to a mezcal tasting tonight in preparation for the trip. There's a social question, do I stand up my trivia team tonight to grab drinks with the very wealthy guy and partake of his crazy expensive alcohol collection?

I’d be completely fine going solo, but I doubt he knows that. If the roles were reversed, I would consider it an obligation to at least make an appearance under similar circumstances.

The actual event itself is a fairly minor thing in my mind. Like being close to totality for an eclipse and not making a relatively low effort to go watch it. Being in Wisconsin and not having a cheese curd. Being in Hawaii and not going to a beach. These aren't moral failing but I'm going to squint at you.

As chance would have it, I find myself in Southern California this week (considering writing some reflections on the trip as a flyover peasant), and happened to stop by a sports bar for dinner without realizing Mexico was playing. The Mexicanity is immense. Sounded like a bomb went off when Mexico scored. Pretty fun, honestly, even if I had no idea what’s going on.

Maybe it's what primed me for thinking it's obvious to go out, I was in Rio when they won gold and even though I was in my room (probably still should have found a way but Barra was locked down and it was a massive pain in the ass to get in and out) that was still pretty nutty.

I'd go and I feel like it's weird not to go. Clearly I'm in the minority here.

Same for me. I wouldn't mind if someone doesn't want to go (it's his loss), but if I was going to be in town during a world cup game I would absolutely go.

Seconded.

You are not in the minority of people I know in real life. As I asked here, I asked many people in real life and it was unanimous that it's - at best - odd not to go. Something to keep in mind with certain takes on this board.

Are any of your friends named Barney Stinson, by any chance?

(I kid, of course.)

I literally was thinking about the hot crazy scale and thinking about some kind of skill coolness factor. Like if you're really high skill in specific areas you're still cool even if you're lame in a bunch of others. Doesn't quite fit.

Just a question:

Why?

For me not getting into it is a little like this meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-wish-i-was-at-home-they-dont-know

You're in the party even if you stay in your room. Every goal, every attempt, every penalty or lack their of you're going to hear. Don't just stand in the corner.

Because to me it's a festive, rare event, important enough that it's televised worldwide. Plus it sounds fun, and even if the time is shitty it will be a memory to share, or recount, years from now.

A moment of social weirdness pales in comparison to literal hours of figurative torture.

There's nothing torturous about going to a sports event, even if you don't enjoy the sport. I've been to games which I couldn't care less about; still had an enjoyable time.

I'd consider a World Cup game easily worth it to go if I had the opportunity to do so without paying, but I'd say that basically any public entertainment event as intrinsically torturous, due to proximity to crowds. Doesn't mean it's never worth it, but the positives better be high enough to outweigh the significant figurative torture.

I like soccer as far as it goes and I like seeing people enjoy sports. Plus I bet there will be beer.

Under the circumstances you describe, no chance I'm going. Soccer sucks and going with a mild acquaintance isn't going to make it better. I will have plenty more opportunities in my lifetime to attend events I don't care about, so this one being "a few in a lifetime" one carries zero weight.

Why should he go? Sounds like negative utility to me. Straits-dwellers have a pejorative word for this behaviour: kiasu, which roughly translates to FOMO on steroids.

Seriously who cares if you’re cool or not only losers care about that.

A big part of why I'm taken aback is that, for me, it doesn’t take any thought. It’s a given: if you don’t have some other obligation, it’s what pretty much every other person I know in real life would do.

Yes, many truly cool people don’t put much thought into it. Though I have a strong suspicion that even at the highest levels - naturals like elite athletes included - they’re putting more thought into it than people realize.

But alas, I am not effortlessly cool, I'm a naturally a loser. How does one go form loser to not loser. I don’t see a clear path from loser to not-loser without thinking through some of these things, even if truly “cool” remains out of reach. Maintaining social circles takes effort if you’re not naturally cool - and even for most people who are. Cool extroverts may enjoy the effort, which makes it easier, but it’s still effort. I believe this is even more important in the face of modernity and with younger generations.

Of course, being a try-hard is the death of cool. I won’t list my escapades (that would be try-hard), but I rarely seek them out purely for their own sake. I’m already doing something and being somewhere, so I’ll put in the effort to seek out something “cool” to do. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t put thought and make deliberate choices in those circumstances.

So if I’m in Mexico, what’s the “coolest” experience I can have on a given day with very little extra effort? It’s giving myself the opportunity to be jumping up and down with a bunch of beautiful people, beer held high, chanting “Olé, Olé, Olé.” I can have a quiet cocktail (what was offered as an alternative) or read a book in bed any evening.

So if I’m in Mexico, what’s the “coolest” experience I can have on a given day with very little extra effort?

I knew a guy like this. He basically viewed doing "quirky" and "interesting" stuff like this as a way to present an interesting facade so that he'd have stuff to talk about with other people. Kind of like the guys who buy a Rolex as a "conversation starter". He was (and, I assume, still is) a total schmuck.

Anyway, point is that not everyone shares your view of what a good time is, and it's narcissistic to view this as some kind of personal sleight.

point is that not everyone shares your view of what a good time is

Obviously and I would even venture it's the vast majority of people.

it's narcissistic to view this as some kind of personal sleight.

I'm not so post-modern to think everyone's idea of a good time has equal value. Do I think this person is a degenerate for skipping out on an experience? Of course not. I will happily take them up on their offer of a quiet cocktail another night. If he asked me to game with him some night, or do a quick DnD campaign I would even though it's not my highest preference for an evening.

I'm not so post-modern to think everyone's idea of a good time has equal value.

TIL de gustibus non disputandum est is a postmodern sentiment.

Nevertheless it remains narcissistic to view his refusal to hang out with you through the lens of how it affects you.

Of course not. I will happily take them up on their offer of a quiet cocktail another night. If he asked me to game with him some night, or do a quick DnD campaign I would even though it's not my highest preference for an evening.

In all likelihood, he will never ask you to do this, though.

Let's be clear on one thing:

You've no idea what the real reason(s) are for this loose acquaintance of yours not wanting to go. You've no insight into his mind and life. There could be any number of things going on, beyond the stated claim of not liking crowds. Maybe he's got social anxiety or any other disorder. Maybe a family member is sick and needs him. Maybe you give him the ick. Maybe he's got bad experiences with sports crowds. You've no idea. Yet you jump to conclusions and judge.

You're showing a major lack of reflection.

Damn, man. You're a dad with children now, its okay to be uncool. Your free time is probably limited if you have kids. You should not spend your limited free time doing things that you think may result in an interesting story to tell others. You should do what seems appealing. If you have curiosity about pro soccer, so be it, it is competiton at the highest level, but it can also be appealing to do nothing and follow the wedding schedule. Maybe there are some activities you can do with your kids locally in Mexico that are not available at home?

Attempting to be cool is always uncool. But I believe that not caring about being uncool demonstrates self-confidence, which is it's own form of coolness.

As a dad and husband, it does not set a good example for your family for you to be concerned with matters of trivial importance. Maybe you have some time to plan a interesting mini-vacation for your family, like scuba diving, cave exploration, or visiting interesting areas?

I am not cool - extra not cool now that I have kids - but it's two hours. I'll be spending way more time with my family than normal. Most likely my son is going to be jumping right there with me, my wife jumping with my daughter strapped to her. I would not judge a father in my circumstances for not being in the mix, this dude, not a dad.

For me the world cup match is an automatic go-to if the cost is within budget and the family would likely enjoy it.

I also think coolness or uncoolness should have no bearing on your decision making, for like almost everything. Aspiring to coolness is an adolescent male's concern that he is respected by his peers and that he is appealing to single women of his preferred dating demographic. As a husband + dad, I hope that you soon come to realize that you no longer need the approval of your male peers, nor the attention of single women anymore. At least that's my perspective as a husband + dad.

You may have a different definition of coolness than me, because I don't consider having kids to be uncool. To me having kids is tangible proof of a man's virility and relative wealth, elevating him to a higher level of status beyond the coolness anxieties of single or childless men.

I can have a quiet cocktail (what was offered as an alternative) or read a book in bed any evening.

I agree, but being in Mexico opens up a constellation of other options you could capitalise on, all of which may offer you more utility than going to a soccer game it doesn’t seem that even you’re particularly interested in. It’s not a choice between “soccer match” and “reading a book in bed” (that I concur is an awful value proposition when you’re in a foreign country), it’s a choice between “soccer match” and “seeing Teotihuacan” (which is all lit up at night) or “wandering the historic centre trying out the local food” or “watching the mariachis in Plaza Garibaldi” or any number of other very local things you could be doing.

Coolness per se doesn’t matter as much to me as enjoyability does. If you’d enjoy the match, then yeah, go for it. But there are other options you can avail yourself of which might be better for you, depending on your bent.

Sure if you got something better to do. Maybe this is context that lacking but it's Sayulita for 11 days. The match is 19:00. We will be availing ourselves of the local fair extensively. I wouldn't be surprised if they projected it on to Teotihuacan (not really) Plaza Garibaldi you could do both and it's gonna be crazy during the match, probably more intense than what I could find. For the vast majority of Mexico this is gonna be the only game in town (see what I did there, so subtle).

Maybe you've been identified as a bigger loser.

If he goes out with other people or even solo...

I certainly I'm a massive loser. I hang out here, asking loser questions.

What is a loser, anyways? I define a loser as a male of low status who engages in low status activities. You have a wife and children, clearly you did something right at some point in time, assuming you sired the children. Many men aspire for a family and are not so fortunate as you.

I believe asking questions and seeking advice shows self-awareness, a willingness to be criticized by others, and a desire for self-improvement. These are not qualities of a loser.

I'm taking the piss a bit. I was definitely a loser up until Sr. year of highschooler. The guys that were bullying me got kicked out - so that was helpful - and I decided I was going to start with working on eye contact which I couldn't even maintain with guys. That's where I push back on the effort aspect, it took constant concerted effort, deep introspection, on my part not to be a loser.

I think about it through a lens that Scott presents with fashion and cellular automata, and I often consider myself to be second tier in many areas. It put's me in the place of being able to conceptualize greatness and realizing just how far away it is.

I have some pretty top tier friends and acquaintances in athletics and intelligence.

Much more limitedly I have rolled with some effortlessly cool guys. Groups form around them from the ether, seeing that look in a women's eye when it clicks that she wants him. They're the people I feel the most distance from.

Even more being a dad, if an easy interesting opportunity presents itself, I think one should take it. Set an example for the kids.

Translated to English:

This is a dumb "question", but I'm just flabbergasted in a low-key situation. I'm going to Mexico for my wife's friend's wedding. (I'm taking my small kids. It's gonna be something...) It happens to be over Mexico's first World Cup knock-out match. I don't like soccer (it's for the poors), but this falls under the "few-in-a-lifetime opportunities" category in my mind. The one guy I kind of know on the trip turned me down on going out to watch the game, because he hates crowds and sports. I've always struggled not to judge this guy as a loser (he sulks around and whines a lot), and this really doesn't help. Literally, I don't think any other person I know would turn down an invite like this. Am I being too harsh?

Am I being too harsh?

I fail to see what having no interest in crowds and sports has to do with being a loser. To such a person, a "few-in-a-lifetime" high-profile event would be more annoying, not less annoying.

(Disclaimer: There are several reasons for which I can be considered a loser, but I don't think that my lack of interest in crowds and sports is one of them.)

(Anecdote: In my freshman year of college, the university (or maybe just the engineering college—I don't recall the details) gave to every freshman a free ticket to a local baseball game and made a joking threat that everybody was required to attend it. I found it profoundly uninteresting, and left after the first inning (or maybe after the first half-inning—I don't recall the details).)

I fail to see what having no interest in crowds and sports has to do with being a loser.

It doesn't in and of itself. Correlation, but certainly not a given. I know lot's of guys that hate crowds and have no interest in soccer, every one of them in my circle would recognize this as a rare opportunity to do something interesting - something that "cool" people think is "cool". It's being unwilling to be uncomfortable for a limited period of time to partake in a rare enough opportunity that tends towards "loser" behavior.

I think baseball sucks as much as soccer, I don't live near a MLB team so when I am on a work trip in a city with one and get invited to an MLB game, I go. Because it's a semi-rare opportunity.

Anecdote from my freshman year of college. I found myself turning down invites because I liked watching pirated shows, and films. A few weeks in I decided to never turn down an invite unless I had a very good excuse. Not disappointed in that choice at all.

There are people that I would consider "cool" who would turn down such and invite, but got to amp up the "coolness" in some other areas to compensate.

Anecdote from my freshman year of college. I found myself turning down invites because I liked watching pirated shows, and films. A few weeks in I decided to never turn down an invite unless I had a very good excuse. Not disappointed in that choice at all.

I made this kind of decision sometime after college. It's one of my bigger regrets in life, as it raised the amount of suffering I went through in everyday life without providing any meaningful positives. No particular big negative event came out of it, just a constant long-term significant reduction in quality of life compared to the alternative. I ended up regretting it enough to basically reverse it about 5 years ago, never saying Yes to an invite unless there was some specific reason I really wanted to go or to hang out with those specific people. My life has been a lot better in those ~5 years.

And if that choice makes people happier/more content/whatever else, that's great one should 100% live that life.

Socializing is a lot like eating well or exercising. Some people naturally stay thin and fit, while others are just really lucky and actually love working out.

If someone is content with their life, doesn’t get lonely, or in another example has no problem with the reduced mobility that comes with obesity, no skin off my back. On The Motte, I tend to believe people are willing to accept the trade-offs of their actions (or lack thereof). For society at large, I highly suspect that’s generally not true. I see the "male loneliness epidemic" as very similar to obesity. Society used to heavily incentivize not becoming obese, just as it heavily incentivized building and maintaining social circles. Now modernity has removed the guardrails, so people pursue short-term desires and later lament the long-term outcomes.

Socializing is a lot like eating well or exercising. Some people naturally stay thin and fit, while others are just really lucky and actually love working out.

I think this is an apt analogy (along with the stuff about how society has failed a lot of people both in terms of loneliness and obesity) but also not quite right. Eating well or exercising, by nature of physics, definitionally causes someone to stay thin (tautologically by what "eating well" means, to some extent) and arguably fit. But socializing doesn't have similar effect for loneliness. I'd say that building meaningful connections with others is what leads to preventing the deleterious effects akin to preventing obesity. One of my great insights that I had as an adult is that socializing by, e.g. spending lots of periodic time with like-minded people who enjoy your company and like you for who you are and vice versa, doing activities that everyone enjoys and/or is passionate about doesn't actually lead to building meaningful connections or relationships.

I think the main thing is familiarity, as mentioned below by @Bartender_Venator, unstructured interaction of the kind that happens constantly when you’re in other people’s presence.

For example, I have always had the suspicion that many people who work in a team or a small organization with, like, the same 5-10 people every day for many years or even decades are often far closer and more earnest friends than they care to admit, but because it’s considered loser behavior to say your coworkers are some of your best friends, people don’t discuss it.

I work in a team of fewer than 10 people, more than half for 6+ years, more than half of those for 15+ years. I also spent roughly 10-15 years in my 20s-30s with a friend group that I'd known since middle school, living with some of them for a decent chunk of that time, and certainly spending many hours with them most weekends for a lot of that time. That has not been my experience.

One of my great insights that I had as an adult is that socializing by, e.g. spending lots of periodic time with like-minded people who enjoy your company and like you for who you are and vice versa, doing activities that everyone enjoys and/or is passionate about doesn't actually lead to building meaningful connections or relationships.

I suppose this prompts the question: what does?

My mantra is always "repeated unstructured interaction". Activities are good at building shallow relationships, but it's when you're just hanging out and talking about stuff (alcohol helps) that you build the friendship.

The best part of my week is D&D with my friends. It's not the actual playing, though. It's the first hour, where we're eating Chinese takeout and shooting the shit.

Blueprint for building a friendship:

  • Sit in your dining room with the prospective friend.

  • Pull out a long printed list of conversation topics.

  • Pick a topic. After discussing it in whatever detail seems necessary, cross it off the list and take a shot (1 2) of distilled liquor.

  • Continue until one of you vomits or passes out.

  • Repeat as necessary (on different days) until you judge that friendship either has been achieved or will not be achieved.

(This is a joke.)

More comments

The one thing I've found that works is combination of being family + regular interaction. If you ever figure out how it could be done to non-family, I hope you'll tell me!

Letting other people drag you to events that you hate sounds like textbook loser behavior to me.

[citation needed] ;)

I would actually pushed back on that pretty heavily. You could certainly find yourself in a social circle that is not suitable. If you're trad and all your friends are swingers. And I hold opposite gender coded stuff in a differently if you're heavily unbalanced getting drug to your wife's stuff that's a problem.

I have no qualms with someone that wants to live a loner life, have their online friends, a few people they play board games with etc. But I suspect that a lot of people saying that's all they want start complaining about - and they do deserve a lot of it - the foids.

Inspired by this comment from @magic9mushroom . What is TheMotte's preferred political compass survey? I assume it's not https://www.politicalcompass.org/

Before I waste any more of my time thinking about this, is there any evidence that the degradation of the new reflecting pool coating was caused by vandalism as opposed to run-of-the-mill incompetence?

I don’t really care about the algae. That seems like a fixable problem.

I've seen video of sections of liner coming off the bottom, and they certainly appeared to be cut/torn away from the concrete. Like, roughly a roughly straight-line rectangular section about a foot long and maybe six inches wide, with ragged edges near corners.

In one of the arrest videos you can see this woman reach into the pool and pull against something with some force, twice, before getting her phone to take a picture of whatever she's doing, before she looks up and sees the plainclothes park cop standing above her taking a picture for evidence. Some people have also posted photos of chunks they've torn off. Vandalism is definitely happening, who knows whether that's the main cause or just a contributing factor, my priors are indubitably right and your priors are wrong and evil etc.

100% of time spent on this is wasted, but at least 6 people have been arrested for vandalism, with another 10 or so citations or police reports. No details yet, AFAIK.

I personally think it's incompetence. And even worse, it's incompetence due to corruption.

But in an effort to be charitable: somebody certainly made "giant ‘8647’ markings on National Mall" and that's vandalism, so can't rule out the same for the pool as well.

Here's CNN reporting that the water in the pool has elevated phosphate. My understanding is that one of the more straightforward ways you'd get elevated phosphate in the water is by dumping phosphate fertilizer into the water. Given the other evidence of deliberate vandalism, I'm not sure why incompetence or corruption are supposed to be the leading hypothesis here.

I'm open to being corrected if there's some other explanation.

Why do we need a conspiracy here? Hasn't there been algae in this pool all the time?

“The nanobubbler technology has successfully destroyed the algae bloom that has plagued every pool reopening since 1922—most infamously the Obama-era pool reopening, which resulted in massive algae clumps taking over the pool’s surface following years of construction that cost taxpayers millions upon millions, only for the pool to become broken and disgusting days later,” a spokesperson said.

Also, I assume the national mall is covered in security cameras. Surely they would have caught someone dumping bags of fertilizer in there if that was what happened?

Why do we need a conspiracy here? Hasn't there been algae in this pool all the time?

Because it's not just the algae, it's the water having elevated phosphate levels feeding the algae, per CNN, at the same time that people are definitely intentionally vandalizing the nearby green, and also definitely intentionally damaging the new liner material. Again, I'm open to other explanations, but those explanations really ought to account for the observable evidence.

The phosphate levels are elevated compared to what? To ordinary water, or to this pool that's had algae issues for apparently a hundred years?

those explanations really ought to account for the observable evidence.

You don't have to posit a novel explanation when the phenomenon in question is not novel.

....I think one of us is misunderstanding something here.

My understanding is that algae eat phosphate to grow, and therefore an algae bloom should reduce phosphate levels, not elevate them. Algae do not need elevated phosphate to bloom, but will bloom a lot more in the presence of elevated phosphate. further, my understanding is that the most common source of elevated phosphate in water is from fertilizer runoff.

Again, this seems like a pretty straightforward question of fact to me. CNN is reporting elevated phosphate levels in the pool; it seems a reasonable inference that these levels are elevated versus the water that's being pumped into the pool, but if I'm wrong about that, I welcome correction. If the water in the pool has more phosphate than the water being added to the pool, then phosphate is being added to the pool somehow. Given that there is an ongoing vandalism campaign being conducted with relation to the pool and its surroundings, it seems logical to me that the phosphate is being added by the vandals.

Unfortunately, there's a plausible alternative explanation: dead leaf and grass matter will produce phosphate as a byproduct of decomposition, and it's fairly common for pool installations to have early-spring startup phosphate problems downstream of either water or piping contaminated by that decayed matter. It's a well-enough known problem that the implementing company during the repairs would do some purges as a matter of course, but depending on the size of the pump and filtration system, that may have been hard to actually do. And taking in water with moderate phosphate amounts is common: the Obama-era reworks took in Potamac water that was pretty gross about it.

On the flip side, the amount of phosphate fertilizer necessary to produce an algae bloom in a 7m gallon tank is about the size of a milk jug if dumped directly in, and maybe the size of a backpack if just dropped in the grass near the pool, so the malicious explanation is pretty plausible, too.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that unless the phosphate levels have been measured during past algal blooms and found to be normal, we can't conclude that currently elevated phosphate levels represent any change at all. It's a mistake to reach for a unique explanation for this particular algal bloom unless we're sure that the conditions that led to this one are not the same as the conditions that have been leading to algal blooms for a hundred years.

CNN is reporting elevated phosphate levels in the pool; it seems a reasonable inference that these levels are elevated versus the water that's being pumped into the pool

"Fertilizer has been running off the grass and elevating phosphate levels, and causing algal blooms, since 1922" appears to be fully consistent with all the facts. Of course, I have not checked if previous phosphate readings were normal.

it seems logical to me that the phosphate is being added by the vandals.

This assumes that there has never been elevated phosphate in the pool previously. Is that the case?

To take the most charitable interpretation possible, Trump should understand, based on how he's been treated over the past decade+ in politics, that everything he does will be attacked and subverted in the dirtiest way possible. As such, not successfully hardening the defenses of the pool against predictable vandalism indicates incompetence on his part.

Of course, had he done that, that would likely open him up to other attacks of incompetence or corruption or other negative qualities.

I'm entirely willing to accept that interpretation, and in fact this is my interpretation of the culture war as a whole: we no longer have a cohesive society, and so attempting to pool resources or coordinate effort or share institutions in any way cannot be expected to work. You cannot build or even maintain memorials in a society that fundamentally cannot agree on what should be memorialized. Ditto for public schools, public libraries, public justice systems...

It does a show a rather concerning inability to exercise control over strategically important bodies of water.

Runoff from the vast area of lawn that drains into the reflecting pool.

Is that how the water system in question works? If so, I'd have thought I'd have heard of it by now, but again, I'm willing to be corrected if there's clear facts available.

It’s now being alleged in official court documents as well:

https://apnews.com/article/reflecting-pool-liner-cut-national-park-service-trump-98e11bfcb5899753c79bf55698dc958f?taid=6a3d5a134493680001f18a36&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Yeah, with how much attention is being brought to it, I think there will be more attempts at vandalism, which would distract from how there really is probably incompetence involved (how much was the damage? "a caulk over the foam sealant that was cut with a sharp knife or razor" might or might not actually create the algae bloom problem)

This should get reposted in the culture war thread. My prior is that leftists believe, a priori, that everything Trump does is incompetent-corrupt, so any evidence that the reflecting pool really was sabotaged has to be fake, or, at least, not the first stone. But I think there's plenty of good evidence that the Reflecting Pool has been vandalized and not very much evidence that it's the contractor's fault.

Why does the bulk of the evidence of extraterrestrial life that people focus on recently seem to come from the government rather than from scientists? It seems that every time you listen to the latest news on the topic, the government is providing wild claims while mainstream scientists seem to accept or provide nearly nothing as evidence of ET life.

I usually like Ross Douthat but I recently watched his video with Diana Pasulka regarding UFOs and ETs. I am not predisposed to making accusations of government plants everywhere but the interview was so bizarre that it felt like she was just a plant to sow chaos and confusion in the space to me. I have always felt that the term "UAP" was suspicious as it is exactly the sort of SEO hashtag you would create if an entity wanted to track and analyze a certain specific narrative or conversation around a topic that already exists but within a specific context (like government-synthesized data.)

I have always had nightmares about UFOs and found aliens very scary. Have any of you ever seen a UFO or encountered an alien?

It's fairly straightforward. If a normal guy goes for a walk and sees something unusual he either writes it off as nothing to worry about or tells someone about it, in which case he's just some guy who saw something and probably didn't know what he was looking at. If a scientist sees something unusual and it has nothing to do with what they're studying they write it off and ignore it. If a Navy pilot sees something he can't identify he has to file an official report because it might be enemy aircraft or something and it gets put in a file that's invariably classified for obvious reasons. The result is is that there's a small trove of documents that play right into the hands of people who are convinced that aliens exist and there's a huge government conspiracy to cover it up.

Parts of the U.S. Government like the alien narrative as a cheap way to signal that you’re totally a radical free-thinker. You know, one who cares about what the people want. The current administration has selected really hard for a certain willingness to burn credibility for attention.

Professional scientists, who are not usually elected based on economic and social vibes, have different incentives.

If other governments are joining in on the fun, I haven’t really seen it.

I have never seen a UFO, and kinda agree with you. That being said, there are totally actual scientists making the podcast circuit talking about aliens. Dr Beatriz Villaruel is one of the more prominent examples.

Their actual peer reviewed publications are much more cautious and conservative, but you also presumably don’t have the advanced degrees necessary to understand them.

There are loads of exoplanets, dust clouds with organic chemicals, and strange radio sources discovered every week. The reason you never hear about them is that you need an advanced background in spectroscopy to make sense out of the data.

Why does the bulk of the evidence of extraterrestrial life that people focus on recently seem to come from the government rather than from scientists?

It's a strategy for countering the influence of conspiracy theorists. Throw a little alien chum in the water and watch them a) get distracted from ranting about Israel; b) make themselves look insane to an audience that might otherwise be receptive to their anti-government conspiracy theories.

I dunno, thé why files guy got one shotted into aliens and UFO’s, and he’d been talking about psychic powers before hand- and is the current king of mass market conspiracy theories.

Yes, and aliens and UFOs and Atlantis put conspiracy theorists firmly in the "harmless crank" box. Maybe fun and interesting, maybe you even think they might have a point, but you're not going to do anything about it.

When they get more into the ZOG, Epstein, Bilderberg, Pizzagate, fixing the NBA draft lottery stuff, and especially when events seem to be confirming what they're saying, such that normies start listening to their schizo rants and saying "Gee, sure seems like they might be right..." that can be threatening to the establishment.

So the government chums the water with some UFO stuff. And the guys that were putting together the Epstein information, or talking about AIPAC, suddenly they're talking about ALIEN ABDUCTIONS.

And the normies who were maybe starting to listen on the AIPAC stuff, now they're reminded oh no this guy is a crank, I can ignore him. I'm sure Israel is the good guy.

The people going off on aliens were already talking about Atlantis and government witchcraft programs and Bigfoot, that's my point. It’s not converting the antisemites and Epsteiners. It’s converting thé people ranting about Nazi bases in Antarctica and psychic spies.

Imagine you and our learned friend in argument SecureSignals are at a party in college. You both spot the same blonde, and you're both hitting on her. She seems to like you, you're hitting it off, but then SecureSignals starts telling her about his interest in chemical engineering and ground penetrating radar and she might like him better. You want the girl, what do you do?

You bring up the Jews. You mention how much you loved the movie Schindler's List. Because you know that SecureSignals, however interesting and attractive he might be otherwise, will be unable to resist talking about how the design of the gas chamber makes no sense and the bodies were never found and it would be mathematically impossible to burn that many bodies and it's likely most of the Jews died in Soviet captivity. And that's going to scare the hoes.

I understand your point, these guys were all ALIENS guys before any disclosures. But when they're a threat, you want to bring the ALIENS stuff to the front to scare the hoes and discredit the "Dark Money From AIPAC might influence US foreign policy" stuff. It's a foolproof trigger. JFK assassination stuff works pretty well too.

Again, these guys were not ‘AIPAC influence in US policy’ and ‘inconsistencies in the Epstein flight logs’ guys. They were ‘the CIA is using witchcraft to circumvent constitutional restrictions on domestic spying’ guys. They were Atlantean ley lines in the capital guys. They were Silurian hypothesis guys.

I understand the kook sniping point, except that if so, it didn’t work. The guys that bit already had insane hoe scaring ideas that violated the laws of physics because they were fictional.

It's not designed to give them the ideas inception style, it's designed to make them talk about them today.

Let's test your hypothesis. When specifically do you mean by "today"? and why?

Why would the government prefer people who believe in ley lines and the silurian hypothesis focus on roswell coverups instead?

This is not the equivalent of bringing up something jew-related when securesignals is chatting up a cute blonde you fancy. This is the equivalent of walking up to a ranting homeless guy accosting her with theories about the blood drinking shape-shifting lizards putting a chip in his brain and inviting him to the David Duke/Minister Farrakhan conference about whether white and black can and should unite against their common enemy, the Jews.

What a fascinating twist on that one scene from A Beautiful Mind.

Actually what I was thinking of.

The play isn't to go for the brunette, it's to start an obscure math argument among your dork friends.

Only for Feynman to score the triple.

The reality is it's even stupider than this: the reason the American government is so brain-fried and obsessed with aliens is because it's full of Americans (heaven help us all).

What is the latest UAP craze about? You are right, it is strange and sus. Even veteran UFO researchers are bewildered what is it about.

Non exhausting list of possibilities:

1/ Slow disclosure.

Aliens are real and USG is ready to disclose it to the public, in slow drips to prevent muggles from panicking.

2/ Blue Beam scenario.

Aliens are not real, but USG plans to fake alien contact to establish New World Order(TM). When ayyys tell the masses to live in pods and eat bugs, the muggles better to comply.

3/ The flying tictacs are red.

Aliens are not real. The objects in the sky are real and are Chinese Star Trek tier technology developed in secret. USG is panicking, desperately searching for countermeasures and in the mean time tries to prevent panic among muggles.

4/ The flying tictacs are red, white and blue.

Aliens are not real. The objects in the sky are real and are US Star Wars tier technology developed in secret. Were you thinking that the trillions of dollars spent on GWOT were really wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan?

These superweapons are reserved for final struggle with China, and USG is trying to deceive China in the mean time, so they will come as complete surprise.

5/ Wilderness of mirrors

No one know what is real and what is not, least of all USG experts. It is all some complicated inside game muggles have no hope of understanding.

6/ One big nothingburger

It's not real, there are no conspiracies, just grifters, scammers and mentally ill people doing things for their own purposes. Nothing to see there.

Adding into the mix something that the government sources themselves have suggested, which is, basically, "our research/reverse engineering efforts are hitting dead ends because we have the program buttoned up too tight and we need to open the programs up to more minds."

Okay, that’s a pretty silly excuse.

Paranoid conspiracy theories have got to be the worst form of recruitment for a research program.

Maybe I did a poor job of communicating.

I think the government coming out and saying "we have a crashed non-human craft, any of you eggheads want to come look at it?" it would generate a lot of research interest, don't you? Even saying "yeah okay UFOs are real and we don't know what they are, but we need help figuring it out" would probably garner some interest from boffins, right?

The government sources OP are referring to have been conducting a coordinated pressure/PR campaign that can be interpreted in a few different ways, but one possible goal of the campaign is to get the government to admit to the above (and they basically succeeded on the second half, and have gotten some corresponding interest from boffins, which has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread).

The best argument against them is that it would be pretty much impossible to hide. Small objects in orbit are easy to track, anything entering out solar system at relativistic speeds and then braking to land on Earth would be detected. The power of the radio-waves required to send signals back to the alien solar system would be detected.

Aliens being hidden from us would require multiple governments to collaborate and cover up aliens. If the information regarding aliens is under absolute lockdown the only information available is from governments.

If aliens were widespread in our solarsystem we would have detected something by now. A major civilization isn't going to be silent.

Just pointing out for the sake of thoroughness that this is an argument against interstellar visitors, which =! UFOs.

Assuming known physics is all that is out there, you are right.

There ain't no stealth in space, you can do many things in space, but not hide.

Of course, there is no guarantee that we really reached the bottom of science tree and there are no unknown unknowns out there.

you can do many things in space, but not hide.

This is entirely wrong btw, the US government has stealth satellites in orbit right now.

(Atomic Rockets is a great resource though).

The "stealth" satellites are not stealthy, their orbits are well known and their mass is roughly estimated. You can observe them yourself with rather modest equipment.

What is unknown is their capability and their mission.

Neither KH-11 nor Topaz are stealth satellites of the low-observable Misty line, although objects believed to be stealth satellites have been tracked by amateur astronomers.

Atomic Rockets (on the page you linked to) has a pretty good write-up by Matterbeam on stealth in space, but I recommend reading up on his treatment of a hydrogen streamer.

It's certainly true that, given sufficiently proliferated sensor technology, "there's no stealth in space." But it's also true that, given sufficiently proliferated sensor technology, there's no stealth anywhere, whether it's submarines or stealth aircraft. Keep in mind the question for stealth is not "can remain invisible at any arbitrary range," it is "can you disrupt the hostile kill chain enough to gain an advantage?"

In the real world, sensors aren't sufficiently proliferated, which is why there are submarines, stealth aircraft, and yes, stealth satellites.

Wouldn't Aliens being here almost certainly assume faster than light travel?

No. The Milky Way is 13 billion years old, but only 100,000 light years across. A sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to colonize the galaxy using only sublight tech.

I was amused today to learn that even Karl Marx's father thought Karl was a spoilt, entitled, ungrateful little shit:

Frankly speaking, my dear Karl, I do not like this modern word, which all weaklings use to cloak their feelings when they quarrel with the world because they do not possess, without labour or trouble, well-furnished palaces with vast sums of money and elegant carriages. This embitterment disgusts me and you are the last person from whom I would expect it. What grounds can you have for it? Has not everything smiled on you ever since your cradle? Has not nature endowed you with magnificent talents? Have not your parents lavished affection on you? Have you ever up to now been unable to satisfy your reasonable wishes? And have you not carried away in the most incomprehensible fashion the heart of a girl whom thousands envy you? Yet the first untoward event, the first disappointed wish, evokes embitterment! Is that strength? Is that a manly character?

This is reminding me of this one Shoe0nhead tweet:

karl marx rising from the grave finding out his movement has been taken over by fat ugly mentally ill losers who think being healthy is fascism and cant even own guns because they will k*ll themselves

“Marxism is gay?”

“Always has been”

Does anyone else feel like there's a capability gap between neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and full blown, highway capable cars? Most states that allow NEVs have severe restrictions on where they can be driven, which frequently renders them unusable for daily use.

I long for something smaller, cheaper, and more efficient than a car that can still drive on a road with a 45mph speed limit. I can already hear some of you revving up your keyboards to tell me that motorcycles exist, but they fill a very different niche. I don't want to ride a two wheeled, open vehicle when it's 40 degrees outside and pissing rain. I want something with a roof that keeps me dry and a passenger seat.

What's keeping that market from being served? Is it a regulatory thing? Are the economics fucked? Am I just a nut job and nobody else wants something like that?

I struggle to understand who this would be for.

Most people sometimes have to go between cities/urban centers, which, most of the time, will involve going around 65 MPH. The only people that could even be interested in a vehicle limited to 45 MPH, are rich people who can afford to have an extra vehicle that cannot do all of their driving. Average and poor people are going to maximise the vehicle that can do all of the driving they need to do.

But the capability gap got kind of filled anyway, not by slower cars or faster golf carts, but by low autonomy subcompact EVs and "compliance EVs". Stuff like the older gen Fiat 500e, the Mitsubishi iMIEV. They didn't sell well, as they were too expensive for how useful (useless) they were to most people. But again, you have to be pretty well off to be able to not just get that one car that can do all your driving, even if it's a rusty 15 year old abused Civic.

Most families have two cars, and if this sort of a thing was an attractive option you would see more two car families economising on the second car.

There is almost no demand for small, cheap, low-performance cars in the United States. People have tried. They don’t sell.

But how much of that is due to actual consumer preference, and how much is due to government regulation that imposes unreasonably strict fuel-economy standards on smaller vehicles, encouraging manufacturers to push bigger vehicles?

For model year 2031, the current standards are 55.4–74.1 mi/gal for passenger cars, but just 34.3–57.1 mi/gal for "light trucks" (SUVs, minivans, crossovers, etc.), with higher numbers for smaller vehicles within each class on the basis of footprint (wheelbase × track width). (It looks like Trump is in the process of reducing these ranges to 30.6–40.9 and 26.1–31.7, respectively. He also eliminated the penalty for violating the standards.)

Indeed, from what I understand, the Ford Maverick is a massive success, despite it having been common wisdom, before its release, that "Americans just don't like smaller cars/trucks".

The maverick is hitting a specific market niche, and despite its low price that niche is not ‘basic car’- it’s got all the same tech as the F-150. It just gets really good mileage.

The problem for small trucks is that the average Westerner already drives one.

It just has a carpeted, covered bed that shares room with the seats. Crossovers, as these are generally called, are literally just better small trucks/utes, where the only reason you wouldn't prefer that is if you were intending to transport something you didn't want in the cabin, or if you were occasionally wanting to haul something longer than could fit in said cabin.

The Maverick also sells partially because it's the best of the two options you have to choose from. Same with the Bronco and the Mustang, for that matter.

It blows my mind sometimes that the Maverick is considered small. Compared to my old ranger, it seems huge.

Regulatory capture, historically a robust used car market which makes it difficult to sell a $5k penalty box when $5k can get you a much larger car used, the obesity and stupidity of the American consumer.

That said, if you're ok with a gas engine, the 25 year rule on importing non-American compliant cars has now reached the point where 25 year old cars don't suck. So get yourself a kei car for like $5k, and you're golden.

I very nearly pulled the trigger on one of those light Japanese trucks, but the dealer near me sold out before I could figure out insurance and title.

Beware the safety issues - the crumple zone for the front of those mini trucks is located in the driver’s and passenger’s foot wells.

What's keeping that market from being served?

Regulations. There are lots of safety requirements demanded for a four-wheeled vehicle (automobile) to be deemed street legal. What you're describing, essentially an E-UTV, is already a pretty well-served market, but couldn't be titled as a passenger vehicle in most locations. Your best bet would probably actually be an electric three-wheeler, which is classified as motor/autocycle and falls into a completely different regulatory regime. Vehicles like the Trinova are designed to deliberately exploit this.

ETA: I believe in most places you can legally operate so-called "Low-speed vehicles" incapable of exceeding 25MPH on roads rated for similar speeds, but that limits you pretty severely, as you note.

Vehicles like the Trinova are designed to deliberately exploit this.

RIP the Elio.

The Elio’s expected range is 672 miles, based upon an 8-gallon tank and 84 mpg highway, and greatly exceeds that of electric vehicles (typically 100 to 300 miles) and that of most other vehicles of its size (typically 300 to 400 miles). Configured in a three-wheel format, it is conceived with tandem seating for two passengers to travel in a front-to-back layout. With a targeted retail price of $7,450 per vehicle, we believe that the Elio provides the efficiency and environmentally friendly benefits without the price premium, driving range anxiety or safety risks of electric or hybrid vehicles.

But of course it turned out to be a scam.

I made the Rancho Gordo baby green lima beans into succotash (x2, one with fresh corn, one with frozen. Not enough difference to trouble myself with fresh corn). It's reasonable. I am not anti lima bean but they also aren't a preferred bean. I may try the lentils once I finish eating the succotash.

Continuing the task of cleaning out the pantry, I used up some old unflavored gelatin by making coffee gelatin squares. It worked! I don't know why that surprises me, but it does. I don't like coffee so I will find out how my coworkers feel about coffee Knox blocks.

Any recommendations on Legionnaire hats for yard work? I've got a Tilley hat that I love love love, but wouldn't mind rotating to another hat on occasion. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of looking dumb, but not a ballcap.

So, what are you reading?

I've finished Churchill's Savrola. The latter half is a long revolution, with a focus on the fighting. Now that it's over, I can't say that it has been particularly memorable, but maybe I'll come back to it in the future. I found its specific interests of personality and capability, and its realistic, detailed style to be interesting. Not a bad read. I'll definitely be reading other writings of Churchill, though it seems like this was his only novel.

When all deductions had been made on the scores of ambition, duty, excitement, or fame, there remained an unabsorbed residuum of pure emptiness. What was the good of it all? He thought of the silent silent streets; in a few hours they would echo with the crackle of musketry. Poor broken creatures would be carried bleeding to the houses, whose doors terrified women would close in the uncharitable haste of fear. Others, flicked out of human ken from solid concrete earth to unknown, unformulated abstractions, would lie limp and reproachful on the paving-stones. And for what? He could not find an answer to the question. The apology for his own actions was merged in the much greater apology nature would have to make for the existence of the human species. Well, he might be killed himself; and as the thought occurred to him he looked forward with a strange curiosity to that sudden change, with perhaps its great revelation. The reflection made him less dissatisfied with the shallow ends of human ambition. When the notes of life ring false, men should correct them by referring to the tuning-fork of death. It is when that clear menacing tone is heard that the love of life grows keenest in the human heart.

Finished The End of Eternity. Strong ending, I think, though I would have preferred it if Eternity turned out to be holding humanity back not because actually we need WWII to reach the stars but because Eternity is stuck in a local maximum and would never do what it takes to break out of it.

Now on The Worm Ouroboros, by the man who called Tolkien a soy. I'm bewildered by the swiftly abandoned framing device, the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy? it's holding my attention despite that, and the 17th century prose is very convincing.

But the King would not hear him, but said, “Methinks it is for loyal subjects to seek greatness in the greatness of their King, nor desire to shine of their own brightness. As for this Demon, when thou sayest that I have overcome him thou speakest a gross and impudent lie. In this bout I did but measure myself with him. But thereby know I of a surety that when I put forth my might he will not be able to withstand me; and all ye shall shortly behold how, as one shattereth a stalk of angelica, I will break and shatter the limbs of this Goldry Bluszco. As for thee, false friend, subtle fox, unfaithful servant, this long time am I grown weary of thee slinking up and down my palace devising darkly things I know not: thou, that art nought akin to Witchland, but an outlander, a Goblin exile, a serpent warmed in my bosom to my hurt. But these things shall have an end. When I have put down this Goldry Bluszco, then shall I have leisure to put down thee also.” And Gro bowed in sorrow of heart before the anger of the King, and held his peace.

I think there's a brief reference to the 'demons' having horns and the 'witches' having tails. Then there's the foliots, who have wings? I took it to imply these weren't ordinary men at all, which made the story much more intriguing!

There's a brief reference to the demons having horns, but they also apparently have horned helmets which is a little strange:

Therewith stood up Lord Juss, and with him the Lord Goldry Bluszco, that went in all his war gear, his horned helm of gold

Of course, none of these special features play any role in the story, even in the wrestling match where you would expect horns would play a role. It's all very uneven.

swiftly abandoned framing device,

It'll come up again later, briefly. Eddison did not forget about it. I suspect the whole thing was just his way of telling readers who were not yet used to the conventions of fantasy and world-building to prepare themselves to enter a completely different world from their own, and a request to observe it without rendering judgement.

the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy?

Supposedly he invented them as a teenager and couldn't bring himself to change the names later. Unknown if true. I love the book and have come to acccept the names and the lightweight worldbuilding; it just doesn't do to approach it with 21thst century fantasy literature expectations.

21th?

Yes, the twentifirth century, which began in the narrow waterways of coastal Scotland.

Corrected, damn you.

it just doesn't do to approach it with 21th century fantasy literature expectations.

Ah, but Tolkien is firmly 20th century fantasy literature. I think even Conan the Barbarian does better with naming conventions, though perhaps largely thanks to cribbing from actual cultures.

Nevertheless I will persist.

You're quite right, but keep in mind that The Worm Ourobouros predates The Hobbit and Conan both, by over a decade. And I really meant 21st century expectations - I don't think 1930s or 1940s readers would already have consumed a large number of works in a well-established genre of world-building fantasy that shaped their expectations like those of modern readers have been shaped. But I may be wrong.

I just finished A Canticle For Leibowitz based on the recommendations of a few people here. I was genuinely surprised when I finished it and found out it was written in the 50s - the whole time, it felt like it was a more recent work for some reason. I was also surprised it was so Catholic, mainly because religion is so low these days, but coming from the 50s it makes more sense. I enjoyed the book quite a bit, though the transitions between the parts could be a bit jarring as you had to figure out what was going on. Particular favorite bits were the scene where the monks activate the electric light while reciting Genesis 1 in Latin, and the part 3 abbot's explanation of the concept of redemptive pain to a suffering mother. Overall, solid book and I echo the other recommendations people have given here.

I've been reading Andy Weir's Hail Mary, since I liked Artemis. About 2/3 of the way through, and I think it's great! Good Sci-Fi, and the stakes are certainly exciting. I suppose the character development might be considered a bit weak, but eh, that's most Sci-Fi. The character does seem rather similar to the similarly isolated character from The Martian. It does also tempt me to make a more general post somewhere about nonlinear storytelling and how it's done well and poorly. Short version is, I think Weir's books are good examples of doing it well.

I also finished Day Of Ascension by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Feeling a little meh about it. It's an okay story I guess, but it seemed a little predictable, and it feels a little tough to get into that universe.

It's not bad as sci-fi, but I find the prose itself a bit uninspired, and the film is a much better film than the book is a book.

Blindsight is also a first contact story that's superficially similar in premise, but much beaker and more pessimistic, and the prose is a lot purple-er.

Tchaikovsky is someone I have a hard time liking for some reason, but I have to respect his hustle. Service Model felt like a drawn-out joke, but a good joke. Alien Clay was interesting until it got all ineffable and commie, and I found the villainous regime to be a bit cartoonish. Made Things was cute.

About four-fifths of the way through Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay.

https://www.midjourney.com/medical/blogpost

It starts by stepping into a shallow pool of golden light. You then begin to descend into the water. Your body passes through a ring of underwater sensors, each acting like a dolphin, using its echolocation.

I'm a little confused as to how Midjourney is avoiding the FDA classifying their scanner as a medical device. Are they just hoping that the feds see "spa" and don't bother to look closely? It seems like squeezing this through the general wellness exception would be a stretch.

I am not an expert in law, but my guess would be that if it doesn't do anything medical, and it doesn't diagnose anything medical then it probably doesn't trip any medical laws. It takes pictures. It's just a very fancy way of taking pictures inside your body, but not in a potentially damaging way like an X-Ray that has to be used for medical purposes in order to justify the risks.

We’re starting by just giving you detailed body composition maps — and we’ll be submitting regular test results to the FDA for increased capabilities.

Seems like that's their understanding too. If they want the AI to actually look through the photos and make medical conclusions based on them they need FDA approval (which they are working on getting). But if it's literally just taking images and giving them to you then it's just a really high tech camera.

It's one of those things where the FDA can be incredibly overzealous on a whim. They have a lot of discretion. Midjourney needs to be very careful about what they say.

I suspect that the fact that they have deliberately left out features which they are currently going through FDA approval for is going to show enough deference to and stroke the ego of the FDA enough to keep them mollified for the time being. It's possible that if the FDA rejects their submission for AI diagnosis tools it might also retroactively restrict the whole thing, but I think it's more likely they allow the partial use because it validates their authority.

MRIs and ultrasound are both imaging techniques that have pros and cons but don't use radiation (one of the pros). This reads as if it will have the functionality of a CT scan (3D, multiple images) without ionizing radiation. Pretty impressive if it works as described. Endoscopy is basically a "high tech camera" but is invasive and time-consuming. This sounds like getting in and out of water. Interested to see where this goes.

Ultrasound is very good at some things but is currently understood to be fundamentally unable to provide information about things Midjourney has made claims on. Thanks to AI I'm not going to say it's impossible (unlike say Theranos) but it certainly looks like one of those situations...

What (implausible) claims are they making? I've only seen them talk about body composition, which seems like bog-standard ultrasound + 3D modelling and edge/surface detection.

Ultrasound doesn't really give the information you'd need for a lot of things, but I did a quick lit review and it looks like nature has a paper about some novel techniques they may be copying.

Still probably snake oil but okay fair play maybe this will go somewhere.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-midjourney

Scott is not enthused.

Scott's not enthused about the overall capabilities. The closest he gets to sourcing those claims is "the SF AI crowd". Mostly, he's just preempting ideas that nobody is necessarily claiming, which is fine as far as it goes.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats