site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   4249 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 10, 2023

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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anyone have a quick start guide for doing useful things with LLMs and AI in general, and how to do useful things with them. All I've done is ask stupid questions to Bing Chat, which I find no more useful than a search engine, and sometimes less useful.

Also any way to download, train, and run them, so I can train the biases out of them?

I've built multiple LLM based projects that run in production so I might have some answers. Basically all automation of really repetitive but simple cognitive work. Don't expect the LLM to do all for you, use some prompt engineering, some regex, some external ML, some programming to glue it all together.

If you're a programmer it's use cases are quite obvious. It can write code for you. But also you can do NLP tasks from your wildest dreams. Clean extremely messy and inconsistent user data that no regex in the world could solve? done. Create a semantic search engine in 5 minutes? Done. Anything NLP application based is just a solved problem now.

If you want to run a local LLM go see what /r/LocalLLama recommends and or what's popular on hugging face right now. Even though I would say that if you are asking this question at the end of 2023 you probably have been living under a cave and should learn basic programing first before you have a shot at training your own LLMs.

I suggest you get a feel for openais llms first in the playground and see where your mind takes you. Talk to gpt and use it as a search engine and you will get a rough idea of it's capabilities.

It’s interesting how useful LLMs seem for programming. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the first thing software engineers optimized their new toy to do was write code. It’s like how there are so many moves about movies.

I think also software engineers are especially attuned to inefficiencies in productivity in a way regular white-collar workers are blind/indifferent to. Software engineers imo are 10-100x more efficient at doing the same work than even other marginally technical white-collar workers like data analysts do (I'm sure there is a lot of productivity in just knowing how to use concurrent/asynchronous programming, on top of programming at all).

Software devs are the only people increasing their wpm, installing window mangers, use the cli, makes custom keyboard shortcuts, leveraging scripts and automation whenever feasible (sometimes to their detriment) etc.

You see a lot of efficiency exploration in finance, consulting, and some doctors. The last field is mine and you see a lot of people desperately trying to figure out how to apply LLMs to save time or increase throughput, and I've heard tons of stories about finance and consulting people doing similar things prior to LLMs.

somehow i ended up in looking at this youtube channel: https://youtube.com/@hausofguns/videos but it has not been active for 7 years and a similar story for the guys twitter: https://twitter.com/HausofGuns. what do you think happened to the guy? it seems a bit weird that he just fell off the map.

-- this is just me being crazy. i guess maybe his business didn't work out. he still seems to be around.

In the purely hedonistic post-scarcity society what is the ideal male-female ratio?

1:1, but the men and women are both extremely objectively attractive. Anything else is suboptimal for a "hedonistic utopia".

If the people have to be from the same distribution as our current timeline, then maybe 10F:1M.

Why do I see weekly wishes of violence towards the developers who created the WebP format, and never towards the developers who refuse to add its support to their software?

I wonder where you actually see this, I've never seen anything like it.

But the issue with things like a new image format is that introducing WebP breaks people's existing workflows. It should have a huge advantage to justify that. But the advantages over jpeg are only significant in a few specific use cases.

It's probably similar to 7z. I hated it when it first came out. Websites would try to force you to use it and from my POV it just resulted in having to use worse software to decompress things.

In the purely hedonistic post-scarcity society what is the ideal male-female ratio?

Define "purely hedonistic". Define "ideal" (who, whom?).

If by pure hedonism you envision nothing but wireheading, what does it matter? It's not like the claims that women have stronger orgasms than men matters when neither compares to even a piddling dose of fentanyl.

At any rate it's whatever the equilibrium settles out to be. Presumably by "post-scarcity" you mean a very high tech society, not just one that's got enough food to eat, water to drink and houses for everyone.

If people can change biological sex at will, then the ratio means absolutely fuck-all.

If they have VR indistinguishable from reality, then it means less than nothing.

If they have AI, at a level even comparable to GPT-4, then whatever the other people in the pod next door have in their trousers doesn't matter, nor what they represent as in VR. You spin up as many catboys/girls/cat-???s as your heart and compute budget desires.

I would expect such a society to almost inevitably end up post-biological, and thus post-gender, unless strong and authoritarian policies were enacted against it. If I were to envision a weakly godlike Lotus Eater occupying a Matrioshka Brain, its pronouns are the least of my concerns.

What types of philosophy are you interested in? Ontologies which list what categories of things exist and how they interact? Epistemologies which describe how we know things? Ethics philosophies which discover what’s right or wrong?

Definitely ethics.

Primarily epistemics. It at least has contact with base reality, in the sense that a better system of epistemics should help you navigate the world better.

Ethics philosophies which discover what’s right or wrong?

Given that I embrace both moral relativism and moral chauvinism, I don't particularly care what other people think are good or bad, except if they wish to impose it on me I guess. I see no reason to think there are "objective" answers to what's right or wrong, merely a lot of fervent wishing it were so.

At most, a moral claim can be highly compelling, to the extent it convinces me, or it can be nigh universal in humans (for evolutionary and game theoretic reasons, such as a distaste for theft or murder, such norms being found in any mammal with the brainpower to conceive it) but that hardly makes them objective.

Restricted to appraising moral valence as per my own idiosyncratic ethics, I struggle to see anyone more qualified to comment than I am, at least until we've got Superintelligent AGI running around that knows me better than I do.

Does The Motte share data with google? Topics I've read about here (and only here) keep showing up on youtube.

Yup, it uses Google Tag Manager for analytics.

Does that not seem problematic to anyone else?

How?

Everything you read and write here being collected to your real name profile at Google and whoever else they share/sell it to?

If you're not blocking 3rd party cookies at this point, you're kind of asking for it.

I thought I was. I'm using ublock origin and privacy badger.

That should be more than enough. Even if you only blocked cross-site cookies while loading Google's scripts, that should still scramble their user-recognition ability. I don't know exactly what ublock does, but if you look up the GTM script in developer tools, with ublock on, you'll see there's a comment block with ublock's license at the top. Presumably they're intercepting Google's scripts, and replacing them with one that doesn't break the site's features, but disarms the analytics.

If you're not blocking 3rd party cookies at this point, you're kind of asking for it.

Too many websites cease to function properly without 3rd party cookies, unfortunately. Yeah, in principle I could troubleshoot each individual case (is the website or content distribution network down? Is it a script that I'm blocking? Is it because I'm using a lesser-known browser? Is it a 3rd party cookie issue? Is it my antivirus software?) But I'll probably more likely say fuck it and close the tab in frustration.

Too many websites cease to function properly without 3rd party cookies, unfortunately.

Which ones? I've literally never ran into one. Safari blocks them by default, I really doubt any website would risk cutting off the entire Apple ecosystem.

Which ones? I've literally never ran into one. Safari blocks them by default, I really doubt any website would risk cutting off the entire Apple ecosystem.

It's been years, but I recall it being more common when attempting to login or make purchases. I don't remember exact sites. However, googling the phrase (including quotation marks) "Your browser is blocking third-party cookies" reveals many people struggling on various platforms to do various things, including Google and Microsoft, and receiving that error message.

More comments

Everyone’s going to be doxxed eventually. Not that I don’t care, because I do, but I doubt this Google analytics stuff is going to make the big difference.

It does sound creepy. Not my site, but I think the less we're hooked into the spyware that makes up the majority of the web the better. I wouldn't have made an account here if I'd had to link an email, for example.

DSL has zero search engine indexing, if that is of interest.

I'm considering getting an induction hotplate for work (I checked - it's allowed, either at the kitchen, or at my own desk, which is vaguely horrifying to me). What's the most eccentric thing I can cook/make that won't take too much time out of the day?

Learn to make a 10 minute dark roux. Stink the place up.

Bacon, just to give people's salivary glands a workout.

I would murder any coworker who tormented me like this. Or at least steal a bite or two 🙏

Eccentric? Are you trying to annoy everyone?

I tend to go more for "amusing" than "annoying", but it's a matter of taste, I know.

The goal here is powerful eccentricity of visuals rather than smell, then. No fried fish.

Maybe fudge? Then you can enjoy the conflict between "should I say something?" and "should I just keep my mouth shut and ask for a piece?"

Turkish coffee! The accoutrements are cheap, the product is good and universally loved, the ritual of sitting there carefully watching the coffee boil and getting it off the burner just before it goes over is meditative and relaxing.

Gotta make sure that you get a pot suitable for the induction plate. I've found to my dismay, on replacing my regular hotplate with induction, that my cezve doesn't react with it.

Don't be that guy.

Most people here will be familiar with the "This never happens...actually it's a good thing!" sequence. Is there a name for this? I feel like I've heard a name for it before, but I can't remember where (probably here) or what it was.

Also, does anyone know where this was first described?

The Narcissist’s Prayer is how it’s usually described.

I heard it as the Law of Merited Impossibility or the Narcissist's Prayer (it's form is a bit different, but expresses the same sentiment).

The Law of Merited Impossibility wasn't what I was thinking of, because it was definitely a sequence of assertions, shifting over time as earlier stages become untenable. The Narcissist's Prayer is much more similar to what I had in mind. The name doesn't ring a bell, but maybe that was it.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-law-of-merited-impossibility/

Michael Anton calls it the Celebration Parallax, and Rod Dreher calls it the Law of Merited Impossibility.

If you want to keep the law form, Anton calls it the Law of Salutary Contradiction, in the same essay.

Celebration Parallax is very closely related, though.

I remember seeing a post or comment somewhere a few years ago about a big brouhaha at an Effective Altruism convention over whether or not to only serve vegan food. I have seen references to this event, and vaguely remember reading a detailed post/comment about the incident itself, but I have never been able to find it again. Does anyone know what I’m talking about? I’ve tried all the obvious keyword searches in all the obvious places. Nothing.

Shower thought: the state should manufacture luxury items, or alternatively subcontract the work to a few officially approved brands, which would pay enormous taxes for the privilege. If you buy from them, you know you’ve overpayed through the nose, so you must be rich. Basically the state sells you a licence to signal your wealth. Why should the perfectly good money of morons go into Bernard Arnault’s slimy pockets?

I always thought the state should find ways to get donations from citizens, normalize it, reward it somehow. It is technically a big charity with an army. I want to see politicians and business leaders prance around with their million dollar StatelyTM cufflinks.

It's "paid" not "payed".

1616, William Shakespeare, Last will and testament:

...and the use and proffitt therof cominge shalbe payed to my saied Sister Jone...

This was well before the standardization of English spelling.

Please edit the rest of your comment to be consistent with The Bard's grammar, then.

Ah, mercantilism. I agree, on the condition that we bring back the powdered wigs.

I think the issue with that is often luxury products are actually marginally better than the defaults, and I don't think the state could consistently make actually good products. It's one thing to pay $10k for a watch that's 1% better than a $500 watch, it's another to pay $10k for a watch that's 1% worse

They could just repeal the ban on civilian post-'86 machine guns, but add a huge stamp tax. The wholesale prices will come back down to Earth by unrestricting the supply, but the retail prices would remain high due to the tax, and the government gets the windfall.

This would only work if you outlaw all other luxury brands. why would someone buy a $5k Statelyᵀᴹ watch at 5000% markup when they can buy a $10k Rolex at a 400% markup? Anyone who bought a Stately would just look like a rube - which is the opposite of what they want!

I think the signalling structure isn't wealth → class, but wealth → quality → discernment → class

I agree. The best way is titles, become the Count of Iowa for $1bn, Duke of New York for $20bn, your kids inherit the title for an extra 40% of the purchase price + inflation upon your death etc.

(un?)fortunately unconstitutional. But maybe we can come together and pass an amendment to make it okay.

You think they'd shell out just for courtesy titles? Although for that much dough we the people can throw in an exclusive weekend once a year, where the aristocracy gets to hunt in the sacred groves of west virginia.

The prices quoted are much too high, but people will do a lot for a knighthood or other such gongs. They aren't hereditary, due to vague egalitarianism and a desire not to inflate their value.

You might also be interested in the "For Iron I Gave Gold" campaign:

In 1833, Princess Marianne of Prussia asked Prussian women to give their gold in order to fund the war against Napoleon Bonaparte. In exchange, they received an iron brooch or ring with the inscription ‘Gold gab ich für Eisen’ (Gold I gave for iron). A similar appeal occurred during WWI, when the German state asked its cititzens to donate their gold for funding the war and support families who lost relatives. People donated their gold jewellery, coins a.o. and received as a thank you iron medals or rings (known as Berliner Eisen) with the same inscription as earlier.

https://www.antoinettevondermuehll.com/For-Iron-I-Gave-Gold

In 1833, Princess Marianne of Prussia asked Prussian women to give their gold in order to fund the war against Napoleon Bonaparte.

Obvious scam. The man had been buried for over ten years at this point.

But yeah, it seemed to work, and so could this.

Can anyone recommend any good books about the 1980’s and early 90s with a focus on what caused the Soviet Union to collapse ? I have just finished reading the Walter isacson Kissinger biography, and while Nixon/kissenger effectively curtailed Soviet influence in the 70s, I’m still amazed at how completely the Soviet Union collapsed by 1991. The usual story is that the ussr was unable to compete with the west and this somehow led to its collapse. I’m sure economic decline contributed to their decline, but would love to learn more about the other external and internal pressures which brought it about.

The same thing that causes all totalitarian regimes to collapse: becoming slightly less authoritarian. An edifice of such lies and violence cannot be maintained by politics. Dictatorships do not fall when they are most oppressive, but when they begin to liberalize too slowly for the populace. See also: France, the US.

Imperium by Ryszard Kapuściński is a great book on the subject if you can get your hands on it. Kapuściński was a great observer and in the book he describes his first-hand impressions from the collapse of the USSR based on over 60,000 km of his voyages into the Soviet Union, including the farthest and most obscure parts, little known to the western reader.

A key thing to understand is that the two largest oil producers for most of the 20th century were 1: USA and 2: USSR. Political science types like to play up the battle of ideologies and play down the battle of the petro nations aspect.

Oil exports were the primary source of the USSRs hard currency and allowed it to import things.

In the 80s the Reagan White House got the Saudis and some other gulf nations on board with a scheme to pump like hell and crash global oil prices. This was combined with advanced military research projects like SDI, sometimes called "Star Wars", forcing the USSR to dump even more money into military research.

As a percentage of GDP the USSR had already been spending what the USA would consider WW2 levels for many decades.

The cash crunch created a crisis in the USSR. They were looking at average Russians having to go back to only eating meat once a week like during the Tzar era. Soviet leaders assumed they could loosen the iron fist a bit, allow some market reforms, and keep the USSR going.

Instead the whole thing collapsed.

Of course there were other issues. Chernobyl made Soviet leadership look dangerously incompetent internally.

Now I don't know any good books on the topic. Reagan is a highly contentious figure and has only grown more so over the years. A lot of academics are loath to admit his gambit killed the USSR.

So books tend to be either ra ra Reagan or to play down what happened.

Thank you that is very interesting and was completely absent from my understanding of the situation. Shame no one has written a book on this.

In the 80s the Reagan White House got the Saudis and some other gulf nations on board with a scheme to pump like hell and crash global oil prices.

That seems unlikely to be a major factor

How do you figure? Looking at the graph, oil was at ca 80 in the mid 70s and then crushed all the way down to ca 45 in the mid 80s. I guess you can argue that it can't be the only factor since it was lower beforehand, but it seems reasonable that the USSR was at least partially kept afloat by high crude prices in the 70s and 80s until Reagan pulled the rug on that.

You need to explain why that revenue was so critical in the 80s, when it had not been earlier. Plus, this indicates that total exports were pretty normal even as oil prices dropped (though I cant tell if the data is adjusted for inflation, and exchange rates might have fluctuated).

Finally, did Reagan convince them to "pump like crazy" or merely to return to normal levels of production

PS: Re oil, stronger argument seems to me is that the regime used oil revenues to provide income to various insiders (I am pretty sure that Gazprom was a govt agency) and that reduced oil revenue made it harder to ]buy off those who became increasingly discontented due to other factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory).

Hmm, I agree that based on the figure of actual oil production, it seems questionable to claim that the Saudis "pumped like crazy", independent of whether Reagan talked them into it or anybody else.

Still, in terms of dependence on oil prices, it's widely accepted afaik that the USSR financed large parts of its own post-war economy by cannibalizing formerly better developed eastern european satellite states such as eastern germany and czechoslovakia. It's at least not only what I was taught in school, but also what contemporaries I personally know have told me. This obviously is not sustainable long-term, but high resource income can prop up a dysfunctional state indefinitely, see Venezuela. It's not a question of necessity, it means that in an alternative world with low crude oil the 70s might have seen a generally worse economy, increasing cannibalization leading to an even worse economy later on, and thus higher chances of earlier riots, protests and revolutions.

Selectorate ....

You will like an anecdote I have from a contemporary in the DDR who worked in military intelligence. He was a car mechanic/engineer and his main task was procuring, checking & maintaining vehicles both for general use by his colleagues and for various important people. One time, he officially was tasked with organizing multiple high-value cars for long-term use. Inofficially, this was more or less a party thrown to bribe insiders with hard-to-get western cars as the final touch. According to him, he was even offered to keep one of the cars for himself because he did such a good job getting them, but declined since he saw it as a betrayal of soviet principles (he is still a true believer). Obviously I have no way whatsoever to check this for myself, let alone prove it to you. But FWIW, I believe him; He never seemed to me like the type to make this up. And according to his kids he has have never owned any car but his Wartburg.

Ultimately I agree, though I think every system needs to "pay off" different interest groups to keep afloat one way or another, so I don't see a big difference between "high crude oil prices propped up the system" or "high crude oil prices allowed the system to buy off an interest group that would otherwise become unhappy".

so I don't see a big difference between "high crude oil prices propped up the system" or "high crude oil prices allowed the system to buy off an interest group that would otherwise become unhappy".

Oh. I was referring to the original claim that "Oil exports were the primary source of the USSRs hard currency and allowed it to import things." I think the data re overall exports tends to undermine that specific argument. However, if the regime relied on oil revenues to buy off necessary supporters (or, more likely, gave those supporters control of the oil industry, as is often the case), oil price drops might have undermined the regime even if it did not undermine the ability to import goods.

Oil exports were the primary source of the USSRs hard currency and allowed it to import things.

And one of the things they were reduced to importing was food. There were a series of droughts and heatwaves there in the early 80s (combined with mismanagement, I'd guess) that led them to miss grain production targets by 25%, 50 million tons a year deficit.

The same thing had happened a decade earlier, albeit to a lesser extent and at a time when they could better afford it (the global price spike that time shocked everyone). I wonder if the most important thing about the 80s wasn't "a succession of bad harvests", but rather "Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s conviction that the country should acknowledge that it has had failures as well as successes". Glasnost in both directions punctured a lot of illusions. A few years later was when Yeltsin went to Texas for a scheduled tour of NASA JSC and was instead blown away by his unscheduled tour of a grocery store. "Even the Politburo doesn't have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev." "He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, "there would be a revolution.""

It’s well-known that children learn chess and languages faster than adults. I’m curious: if you take a kid and put him through an intensive chess program, what are the trade-off costs for other aspects of cognitive development?

For instance, you can do two hours of chess, or you can do two hours of social interaction where they will learn visual-facial cues and auditory-expressive cues and other valuable information. You can do two hours of Spanish, or you can do two hours of self-reflection on a long walk, where they will learn how to filter and organize their past memories and discern what they actually like and dislike.

Some of the traded-off benefits are significant but impossible to measure. Spending time “listening to your body” before and after activities, eg eating certain things or spending time with certain people, builds a valuable collection of associations between activities and wellbeing. Spending time socializing will teach a kid how to recognize cues of trust and distrust, who to imitate and who not to, and so on.

Are you implying that learning chess aids a child's cognitive development?

All game-playing does, to a certain degree for each type of gameplay loop and ruleset. Dominoes and Go Fish aid in cognitive development. When I started playing Bloxorz in my twenties, I could feel my brain stretching with each level I completed.

My understanding is that cognitive skill development is fairly specific, and that research into far transfer from games (or anything) to unrelated cognitive tasks has pretty much been a total bust.

No, I’m saying that learning chess enhances certain parts of cognition, most of which are limited to chess. In other words, they learn chess and implicit secondary things in the process of learning chess.

The question being asked is about the significance of trading off “unmeasurable learning” in favor of chess-related learning. The broader question outside of this specifically would be, “what are the unmeasurable trade-odds when we raise a child to be prodigious in only obvious measurable skills”?

Right. Well, it would be impossible to quantify without a huge study.

But I suppose the simple, rough answer is to look at everything that chess makes strong use of, and then assume that everything else suffers somewhat from under-use. Chess teaches you pattern recognition more than anything, and visuospatial working memory for planning sequences, visualisation, and I suppose, keeping track of relative values of pieces.

Then there are the trade-offs outside the cognitive. A kid who does nothing but play chess in his free time becomes a chess nerd. I wouldn't want my child to do it. Chess is very much a winner-take-all field. Only the top 50 players or so in the world make good money from it, out of millions of serious players. As someone whose name I forget said: "Knowing how to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. Knowing how to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

Hilariously, the quote is from Paul Morphy.

If anything, enjoying competitive chess requires an impressive attention span by modern kid standards. Until of course the kid discovers online bullet chess.

Part of learning chess is learning your opponent’s reactions and how they honestly or deceptively relate to their perception of the board-state. Playing games with other people is a deeply social activity. Having someone walk you through classic games in person would be amazing for cognitive development in all areas.

It was really interesting hearing a master talk about specific games he'd played. It wasn't just "these pieces are better at this stage of the game" or whatever, there was a surprising amount of "I knew Jimmy liked to bulldoze people with aggressive plays, so I insert strategy.

It surprised the hell out of me. Not that psychology was important, but that I got to hear about it at an all-ages community chess class that I only attended to spend time with my nephew.

I was trying to figure out how I would teach my niece chess, and I realized I would start by having us play matches with only one specific piece at a time, such as all four knights or all sixteen pawns. We would build up to using the pieces in full games.

But chess today, being predominately online, makes it the least social sport/game. These benefits are secondary, and most of the learning taking place involves looking at pieces and patterns on the board. Reactions and mentorship are found in many activities and are not unique to chess, so we’re still left with the question of trade-offs.

Ah. As a Gen-X American, I still think in meatspace events. I assumed “an intensive chess program” for two hours a day wouldn’t be computerized.

My feeling is that most kids' time is unstructured and not very valuable for learning. So if the choice is between an intensive chess program and the status quo, the chess program is a pareto improvement. If the choice is between an intensive chess program and an intensive Spanish program, then sure, there are trade offs. But most kids would otherwise be watching youtube videos or playing minecraft.

In a somewhat recent speech Andrew Ng describes the "long tail of 5M$ projects". The idea being that software projects of the recent past were either very cheap or very expensive, and the long tail of projects in the middle were ignored because they were not worth time/money whatever. However new generative AI tech opens up that long tail because things that would have been very expensive or impossible are now cheap and possible, and there is opportunity for those who want to address that long tail.

How do I tap into those projects?

I've been fortunate enough to work with building LLM based projects that run in prod and I think I can start taking freelance and contract work now. My USP isn't being able to stich together openais API with exponential backoff and a vector db, any joe can do that. I genuinely think I can see some very creative uses of llms and embeddings that others just aren't, I can't find any papers or blogs on using llms for what I am using them for. But how do I sell my service? I obviously have NDAs and can't leak my employers trade secrets. Also I've only recently started working and don't have much industry connections.

Making yet another b2b SaaS around openais api is not appealing to me. I want to do contract work where I go to a shop and automate parts of it. Basically I want to move from project to project.

Are you in the Eleuther AI discord server? If not, I suggest you join, because I strongly expect you'll find a lot more in the way of practical/helpful suggestions there than you will here (though there are some people who can certainly assist).

Thanks, I'll check it out.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Hurewitz' The Struggle for Palestine. Slow progress. The topic of education has stuck in my mind. Jews educated young Zionists in schools on the Continent, while Arab Palestinians couldn't help but be influenced by their local peers.

Zurayk made an interesting comment in his book The Meaning of the Disaster that Jews spent their youths being influenced by all kinds of "isms." If we pare down his evident outgroup prejudice (he includes Naziism), there was a point being made there. From an Arab point of view, the Jews were importing a great deal of the rest of the world's thought. But taken literally, it seems that the Arabs lacked the desire to empathize because they were busy berating their own people in a nationalist educational program.

Meanwhile, the "national home" of the Jews became a done deal, and because of the pressure for emigration from Europe and its underlying reasons, Arab maximalist goals, rightly or wrongly, moved further and further away from their grasp.

Last night I finally finished Bones and All. Highly recommend. I didn't like it quite as much as the film adaptation, but it's still a very impressive novel. Sad, tender, nauseating, nightmarish in almost equal measure.

Johannes Roland Raguel Tollkühn's Der König Kommt Heim.

Just kidding, I'm reading an English Kindle version, not my old German paperbacks. They're nice though, all green and avian, sitting on my shelf: https://amzn.eu/d/ht3mQPY

Still kinda comfy, even as the world is ending in the story, and everyone knows it. The Men of Gondor with years of preparation to fight their last stand, Theoden aiming to uphold his oath and at least go down fighting, the Hobbits well out of their depth but pushing on in the knowledge that there's no home to return to when the good guys lose. Eowyn likewise, riding to battle because dammit she's not going to wait at home until the bad guys come to burn it down. There's no real hope at this point, everyone seems committed to fight because that's the right thing to do, not necessarily because there's any hope for victory.

Nice. Much nicer than in the movies.

Just reread Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, set in a weird sci-fi alt history seen through the lens of adolescent relationship drama. Also a very hard hitting examination of mortality. But goddamn if Ruth isn't a bitch.

My girlfriend gave me this book earlier this year and I devoured it in two days. I was literally stepping away from my desk in work for ten minutes at a time because I couldn't wait to see what happened next.

In The Distance by Hernan Diaz, mostly as a primer of his writing style before attempting Trust. The book follows a Swedish man crossing the United States to find his brother in New York during the Gold Rush.

I'm about to start Pride and Prejudice, but my partner has told me that Austen was more of a pioneer than a great writer. After Little Women I'm hoping for something of similar quality, which absolutely blew me away. It was perhaps the best book I've ever read.

Anyway, curious if folks here have good classical novel recommendations they love?

Austen is actually a great writer, gender and pioneering aside. I think if you are interested in the period and enjoy (or feel like you might enjoy) the subject matter it’s unlikely you won’t enjoy Pride and Prejudice. It’s kind of like the best of Dickens (either Copperfield or Bleak House) in that you might dislike it for stylistic or genre reasons, but probably won’t dislike it because of its age or ‘because it’s famous’.

Austen is actually pretty enjoyable, I feel. I had a great time reading Mansfield Park, it never felt like a slog to me.

I could talk about 19th-century fiction all day. One book that I think maybe doesn't get enough love these days would be The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins.

Is the book any good? I read some about the Arab Israeli conflict before but I am always annoyed how every author skirts around the central fact of the entire conflict: Jews are extremely competent again and again while Arabs are extraordinarily incompetent. It’s disturbing how every book casually takes it for granted that one idf tank battalion is worth about 3 Syrian battalions. I would love to read something that doesn’t try to blindside me to this reality

I'm not far enough to tell. It's one of the earliest books on the topic, and seems to have a solid reputation for insight and even-handedness. It's a good read so far, looks heavy on politics. From the introduction:

This book was first intended to be merely a study of the impact of World War II on Arab and Jewish politics in Palestine. But it soon became apparent that political developments in Palestine between 1939 and 1945 were understandable only in relation to the earlier history of the mandate, particularly to the period from 1936 on. Moreover, the political trends in the local Arab and Jewish communities had begun by that time to converge with world-wide currents. This book, then, turned out to be an analysis not only of Arab and Jewish politics in Palestine, but of political repercussions in the Arab and Jewish worlds, their growing involvement in Big-Power politics, and the consequent progressive breakdown of the Palestine Mandate. This is, therefore, a study of the Palestine problem since 1936 against the background of a world distracted by the ordeals of an approaching war, the war itself, and the fumbling for peace.

I read a fair bit of Why Arabs Lose Wars (the full book, not the forum post). What I recall is that Arab logistics were OK, morale was fairly high (consider all the Iraqis who fought hard even in 2003, even when it was clear how outmatched they were) but the officer corps were just not that good at leading, they weren't really professional or coordinated. They only wanted to send good news around, so commanders ended up with a dangerously unreal view of the situation. Communication was poor all around, Israelis could break through the gaps between Arab formations. It said that in '67 the Syrians decided to join the war because the Egyptians said they were massacring the Israelis, despite the opposite being true. In '73 the Egpytians did rather well but they didn't react quickly enough to the Israelis crossing behind them onto the West Bank, nobody was willing to admit they messed up until it was too late.

I think it's primarily an institutional issue rather than HBD: Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda are highly proficient despite lacking resources. Israel didn't do so well in 2006 and they certainly haven't covered themselves in glory in the current conflict.

I think cultural issues are more important in the middle eastern militaries over HBD/intelligence. There is a real inability for people to tell their superiors bad news or take personal initiative to address a problem (in the way that is encouraged in many western militaries). Also there is a lack of NCO corps that performs an important function in speaking truth to power. Also nepotism in commissioning or advancing officers.

NCO's were the best way of communicating accurate information up to the powers that be from the line level. You can't cut that out without a major impact on the effectiveness of an army.

This issue isn't purely within the military. You can see it within 'security' officers and also servile front line service staff in the middle east.

I've never been there, but I'm just running my mouth about second hand things I've heard about.

I understand the CW angle for that, but I almost want to believe it’s the norm for military history. Consider this devil’s advocate:

War is supposed to be one-sided. Forget materiel advantage—from a morale standpoint, it’s much easier to get people to the front if they expect to kill rather than be killed. Naturally, states want to stack up as many advantages as possible. Use drones, use fire, lie in wait, level the city. The less risk to your own humans, the better. A small advantage in technology, intel, or manpower can scale very fast.

But war isn’t one-sided. Or rather, if something is as one-sided as that one side would like, it tends to be fast and efficient enough that people are still debating whether it was a “special operation” or a “peacekeeping mission.” When it’s not, one of two things* has gone wrong. Either one of the parties has bad information, or the defenders had nowhere to go.

In other words, the default assumption for military conflicts should be a complete blitz like the six-day war. A properly prepared division is going to roll over a mediocre or poor one because combat is exponential in nature. Given that the IDF won the first fight, historians probably shouldn’t be surprised that they held the initiative through the 60s.

* Yeah, this really isn’t exhaustive. At the very least I’d include a category where everyone misjudged, including the people dying on the ground. When the state capacity for violence outruns the individual awareness of that risk, you get WWI trenches.

That central fact is kind of accepted by everyone. The ‘reasons’ are somewhat interesting but are beyond a general historical analysis; ultimately it’s some combination of HBD, vastly superior Israeli technology (due to downstream consequences of HBD including wealthy and influential diaspora) and structural weaknesses in modern Arab armies as noted by very many military analysts, international observers and so on over the last 60 years (eg this very famous piece).

Since the latter topic has been done to death (and is in any case less true today when more zealous militant groups in the region, and to a limited extent even the SAA have actually partially overcome some of those deficiencies) and the former topic is the big taboo (and the data was less available during most of Hurewitz’ career), that part of the analysis is less widely available. But I don’t think it’s a great mystery.

Bless me, I have finished The Count of Monte Cristo. I really admire the writing and vocabulary of Dumas (and, moreover, the anonymous translator), but I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. The imprisonment, escape, and discovery of the treasure are terrific, but the remaining 600 pages, comprised of palace intrigue, upper class French political and financial discussions, page-long descriptions of gardens, and all the rest make for a bit of a slog. I understand now why there are so many abridged versions of this book. I do like how the book ends, and I do like Dumas last sentence. He specifies two words that all humans should live their life by: Wait and Hope. Interesting bit of wisdom from the French master.

So. I am happy to be moving on. I have a handful of books that have been in my backlog. I plan to start with Dreamland which is a chronicle of the opioid epidemic. The opioid epidemic is a bit played out in the sense of literature and documentaries (it reminds me of the flood of books and movies about the Great Recession), but I always enjoy a good book about rich aristocrats taking advantage of the poor and vulnerable. Hoping it goes a bit faster than Monte Cristo!

I'd really enjoyed Monte Cristo when I read it (unabridged) a few years ago, and didn't find it a slog. I do agree that the first couple hundred pages go quicker than later on, but there's always enough to stay interesting in my experience.

The fact that Dumas was able to make 500 pages of conversation semi-interesting is indeed a feat. I just found myself unable to read long chunks at a time. I would fall asleep.

It's funny - I think of that garden often and it even shows up in my dreams. I don't remember much of the plot of that section of the book, but I made quite a mental picture of that garden!

The anime adaptation Gankutsuou played a neat trick - they began with the palace intrigue, set the whole thing from the naif Albert de Morcerf's point of view with the Count as a mysterious but apparently benevolent figure, and then reveal the Count's backstory and goals bit by bit. It adds a LOT more suspense.

I can also strongly recommend gankutsuou, though I imagine it's even better for someone with litte or no knowledge of the original. But I'm also a sucker for unusual artstyles in anime.

Question for anyone who joined the Motte post Reddit exodus, and who wasn't already at least lurking on Reddit:

How did you find the place?

After all, I can only assume that the accidental exposure that comes about from being a public subreddit doesn't really apply these days, and Scott's shoutouts are few and far between.

I knew about this place when the exodus happened, but I didn't join until somewhat recently when someone pointed out that this was where the hockposting was happening.

Hmm, thanks for sharing. I'm primarily curious about how people who had never heard of the Motte before it moved arrived here, but I have yet to get a response from someone like that. Maybe they don't exist!

It is worrisome just how suppressive exclusion from mainstream sites can be.

I don't believe any of them have joined, but I privately send links to high quality posts (and sometimes rough drafts of my relatively low quality responses for proofing/critique, almost all of which were never posted) to thoughtful friends and family. Usually the links are related their profession/philosophy or a description of a culture war flareup in their area.

I presume you happen to be an old lurker yourself? At least I don't personally recall encountering you on the old sub, not that my memory is perfect or my knowledge of every user exhaustive!

Yeah, old mostly lurker, both on themotte sub but also SSC sub CWR threads before that migrated.

I joined post-exodus, but was lurking for a little before. (I don't have a reddit account.) I found it via Scott.

Hmm, was that via a recent work of his, or were you trawling through the archives? I struggle to recall the last time he explicitly linked to us, best I can do is either a direct link to a comment made by someone like Tracing Woodgrains about a year or so back, maybe an actual link to the general sub well before then.

He does regularly link to the SSC subreddit, which (I think?) has some of the same moderators as this site. Don't know if there's an obvious pipeline from that sub to here.

It might have been this one where I found it? Not actually sure though. I only discovered Scott after the New York Times incident.

Hmm. Thanks for looking that up! If we're talking 2021, that's about the time I remember Scott personally interacting with me on the old sub, that got rarer and rarer and I can't recall him showing up more than once or twice in the entire duration since.

Not quite post Reddit exodus, but I stumbled upon a geopolitical thread on /r/TheMotte the week the exodus occurred. I liked what I read, and followed everyone in. Never heard of Scott Alexander or Slate Star Codex prior to that.

@EdenicFaithful I just finished up Donna Tartt's The Secret History, which my wife bought for me after seeing it recommended by fashion girlies on social media. It is, at the end of the day, a high class thriller, John Grisham with literary pretensions. I enjoyed the book immensely, I wanted something relatively light after reading a lot of heavy non-fiction lately. And it felt made for me, it is a thriller following a bunch of weirdo pseudo-aristocratic classics students, and I'm the kind of guy who went to a northeastern undergrad school and wore a vintage camel hair sportcoat to a class studying Procopius' The Secret History. There's an effortpost brewing in my notes about the book's status as the progenitor of the "Dark Academia" aesthetic meme, and the memetics of online aesthetics more generally.

With the exception of classics (The Bible, Ovid, Dante, Shakespeare, etc.) which I can't avoid having an opinion on going in, I try to avoid reading about something while I am still in the process of reading the work itself. And because my wife bought it for me as a gift, and specifically referenced seeing it on social media, I kind of assumed that it was new fiction, from the past five years or so. Having finished it, I looked at a few reviews, trying to find things I hadn't caught on my read through. The setting felt vaguely 80s, but there weren't enough clear references to really pin it down, and it felt like an odd time period to pick if you weren't going to use it much and like reference Reagan or era-appropriate music...imagine my surprise when I found out the novel was written in 1992 and the reason it lacked a lot of period-references was because at the time it was written the novel was simply set in the present, with no need to let people know when it was because the underlying assumption was that elite liberal arts students would more or less always be like that, Tartt wouldn't have been able to imagine that two and a half decades later college would be so completely eaten by computerization that her novel would be rendered completely historical.

I had, of course, assumed that the novel was written today, and set in a vague past to avoid smartphones. It is tough to imagine much of novel's moody pacing working in the social media age, with characters texting or engaging in posting every event on social media. Indeed, I have trouble thinking of murder mysteries or thrillers that successfully integrate the smartphone into their plotting. Every modern novel in the genre seems to avoid them by various obvious crutches, such as lampshading that a character refuses to use cellphones, having the phone lose reception run out of batteries or be broken at every critical moment, or by the simple expedient of forgetting about it. I don't read a ton of new fiction, but I can't think of a thriller that handles cellphone usage well. Even the sci-fi novels I recall reading which featured greater communications advances failed to reflect how I actually use cell phones in reality.

So now to get to my Small Scale Questions: how does one successfully integrate the digital world into the classic murder mystery or thriller structure? What authors or works have done so? Is it even possible to do so, or does the digital age simply require that we maintain a higher willing suspension of disbelief? Does communications tech usage date any work to a particular five-year period, because communications tech is moving so fast (ie, in 2003 the gang of high school friends would have definitely used AIM, by 2008 AIM was lame and facebook messenger was everything, by 2013 nobody I knew in college used messenger for much of anything preferring snapchat, in the decade since we've seen the rise and fall of a half dozen social media services, data plans and wifi access have gone from very limited to universal, etc.)? Is there a similar literary discourse about prior technological transitions? Did the telegraph and telephone cause authors to go "oh, shit, so many plots out the window, better set this story in the past or in the wild west or something?" Did literary critics talk about how old plots were obviated by car travel?

Well I read some of the Robert Galbraith detective novels and those had cell phones being used to solve the problems one would expect a cell phone to solve, pretty much. To the extent that they didn't solve problems, it never felt forced. I can't recall anyone's phone running out of batteries at a crucial moment. I don't think lack-of-bars ever featured into the plotline.

It's probably easier to have phones not solve problems in a detective story than a thriller.

Edit: Really, cell phones obviate danger when you know you're about to be attacked soon but you have still have time for the police to show up, wherever you are. So that aspect is not that limiting.

Even the sci-fi novels I recall reading which featured greater communications advances failed to reflect how I actually use cell phones in reality.

My novel certainly does, though cell phones are more of a quaint throwback rather than the typical means of mass communications when most people have neural laces or at least smart contacts. There is a large group of people who are forced to rely on them, or the just as outdated smart glasses/contacts, because their brains reject an invasive implant. But they're not the focus of the story, the protagonist has a 6th gen Neuralink, is about as cybernetic as a Tesla Cybertruck, and possesses an Internet of Things connecting his fingers and toes to his spine.

Then again, I'm a stickler for consistent worldbuilding, it's a self-describedly rational work of literature, and I make a genuine effort to avoid convenient worldbuilding sins because I'm explicitly writing the kind of book I wish I could read.

It's hardly impossible, just a bit harder. The most obvious solution is to have crises where just knowing what's going on or being able to get a message out is hardly sufficient to resolve it. If an author or screenwriter can't come up with any, they deserve to be tarred, feathered and run out of town, or at least denied writing gigs made for thinking folk.

The Neuralink can run out of power, and is only recharged by sleeping, but unfortunately our protagonist is - get this - an insomniac.

I would nominate you for winner of /r/TwoSentenceHorror, but after closer inspection, that spooky tale was just one. Still absolute shivered me timbers and roasted my almonds!

I recently reread this book after first reading it in either late in secondary school or early in my undergrad. I enjoyed it even more than when I first read it: the atmosphere is impeccable, the characters are so vividly drawn, it's extraordinarily readable even when nothing is really happening plot-wise.

Interesting bit of trivia: Bret Easton Ellis (to whom the novel is dedicated, IIRC) attended Bennington College with Tartt. Hampden College in The Secret History is a fictionalised version of Bennington, as is Camden College in Ellis's The Rules of Attraction. The two novels are essentially set in a shared universe: History mentions in passing a female undergrad who slit her wrists in a bathtub, and her suicide is a significant part of the plot of Attractions (several of the chapters are even narrated from her perspective).

I read Tartt's long-awaited follow-up The Little Friend and found it decidedly underwhelming - not bad, but nowhere near as good as her debut. I've heard from several people that her third novel The Goldfinch is as good as History or better, so I'm keen to read it.

Oh man, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the book.

My theories:

-- Richard or Camilla killed Henry. Shooting yourself in the head, twice, is difficult. Not strictly impossible, but difficult. In favor of Richard: Richard changes distinctly after the murder, in ways that mirror and follow the path of what Henry talks about in the garden conversation, he is able to shut up his internal voices and successfully graduate, get into grad school, for a time carry on a normal relationship. Part of his symbolic accession to personhood and his inheritance from Henry is receiving Henry's BMW; throughout the story Richard is limited by his lack of a car, he is dependent on the goodwill of others in a way that is both very symbolic and very realistic to an isolated rural school, who has what car where is a constant source of tension in the work. He kills Henry, and symbolically inherits this grant of full personhood. He becomes more human after the murder, more functional, the rest of the group becomes less functional, drifts outward into their dysfunctions. In favor of Camilla: Camilla was much more involved and agentic than indicated in the work. She is the unsung glue of the group in a big way. Richard and the other boys are always vaguely frienemies, it is never clear which boys are closer and which boys are in competition or enmity, who is in and who is out, while Camilla is always in with all the other boys. Three out of the four are constantly besotted with Camilla, Francis is also shown to be closer with her as a friend. Everyone else is willing to lie about, cover up, or minimize her involvement in their accounts; both because they want to protect her and because they don't want to admit they were under her spell.

— Richard wrote the note from "Bunny," for the purpose of bringing the group back together. Richard feeds off the group, off feeling in on the secret. They’re all starting to drift apart, the group is tearing at the seams, so he creates another crisis for them to keep their secret to try to bring them together again. He liked the game of murdering Bunny, so he creates a new crisis, maybe they will murder Julian? It fails, spectacularly, with Henry’s death.

One of my favourite fan theories came from TV Tropes:

There is a very common interpretation that the other members of the Greek Class actually hate Richard, only tolerating him either to manipulate him or because he is The Thing That Would Not Leave. It's mostly said as a joke, about readers projecting their own dislike of Richard into the characters, but a lot of fans think there is some truth to this, thanks mostly to no one acknowledging Richard when he is shot.

I read this and was initially like "ha ha funny" but then I was like "I been sayin tho"

I always found Richard confusing in that he seems so unlikeable, and is clearly the butt-monkey of the friend group, then he'll report just randomly pulling normie chicks as soon as he leaves the group, who disappear as quickly as they appear in the narrative.

Depending how heavily one finds his narration unreliable, it's not hard to imagine him lying about all sorts of things, that a lot of the positive things he gets are lies or hallucinations.

In The Final Girl Support Group by Grady Hendrix, cellphone and modern technology play a significant role. Unfortunately, the main character is pretty isolated and has no one she trusts or loves outside a houseplant, so possessing a cell phone doesn't avail her much.

Even the sci-fi novels I recall reading which featured greater communications advances failed to reflect how I actually use cell phones in reality.

I remember a bit in an early Culture novel where a “phone” call is interrupted by a strange rushing noise. The resident supercomputer, which is naturally mediating all communications in its region, deduces that one participant is falling near terminal velocity, and dispatches a drone to rescue him. I can’t tell if this is Banks preempting the consequences of a surveillance state, or if he just forgot that inertial measurement already existed.

I've seen a few successful approaches:

  • Keep the time pressure high, and leave few clear authorities to call. See Knives Out, where police are brought in early and can't solve the crime (and aren't even sure there is a crime). For a lighter-hearted take, see Zootopia, where the convention is so transparent most people don't notice it, even to the point where they added the carrot recorder joke. Or see BNA : Brand New Animal, where anyone beastman the protagonists could call has been transformed into ravening beasts. It's not uncommon for these stories to have the interconnectivity be a major part of the solution -- the climax is the reveal and disclosure of the villain (and in BNA, that there are connected beliefs that still hold people together, transmitted from cell phone recording to mass media), rather than a physical tussle.

  • Make your story about that technology. Ghost In The Shell presumes its main characters will be constantly tied to the internet at every moment -- the one guy without a cyberbrain is the runt of the team -- and it's a whole thing if any ever have to go dark. Paranoia Agent takes this in more supernatural ends, and it does work best if it's weakly-speculative, but the same principles can apply for traditional thrillers.

  • Decrease your scope and scale. You can write thrillers that aren't about murderers: there's a wide variety of financial or social crime where calling the police will range from getting nothing to getting written up yourself. It's harder to write these lower stakes as interesting to readers, but it can still be very interesting once you've grabbed them.

  • Drastically reduce the time pressure. If you're trying to solve a homicide from the 1920s in 2020, it doesn't matter what tech you can bring to hand. Arguably, this is a major focus for a lot of older true crime.

Does communications tech usage date any work to a particular five-year period, because communications tech is moving so fast

Maybe in the last few decades. I recently watched You've Got Mail on an airplane and it really struck me as a warm and fuzzy period piece (this probably dates me, but the late 90s are generally considered to be a good time). Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan initially meet over email (AOL, dial-up) and hit it off online, sight unseen, despite being business rivals in real life. It's a major plot point when they decide to meet IRL, but then can't contact each other until they go home and log in. To someone who's had an always-connected smartphone in my pocket for at least a decade now, it's hard to think about how people really lived -- commuted, planned events and trips, and so on -- before.

Amusingly, the business drama in the film centers around Hanks' Big Box Bookstore moving in and displacing the small, local Shop Around the Corner (a classic movie reference) bookstore. But it doesn't foresee that the Internet, which is crucial to the story, will bring Amazon around to presumably drive the big store out within a decade anyway.

It really is possibly the greatest unintentional period piece. It couldn't have been written five years in any direction and made sense.

how does one successfully integrate the digital world into the classic murder mystery or thriller structure?

The answer is that for whatever reason, the digital world is a mountain of red herrings distorting and disrupting informed observation. The laziest way to do it would be that an influencer who has faked their death multiple times for clicks is murdered for real, and their dipshit following is muddying all possible genuine search ability with "We did it Reddit!" mass broadcasted armchair investigation. Even better if there is an "influencer detective" condensing the phenomenon.

For very tangential reasons, this question reminds me of the how to show texting/internet in film addressed by Every Frame a Painting https://youtube.com/watch?v=uFfq2zblGXw

The other night my father rhetorically asked "I feel like asking Netanyahu, 'when has a terrorist group ever been defeated militarily?"

I immediately said "In Sri Lanka in 2009?" The reason it occurred to me was because of @CriticalDuty's write-up here.

Naturally, my father immediately commenced moving the goalposts of the question.

Out of curiosity, are there any other recent examples of terrorist groups being defeated militarily?

Hamas isn't really a terrorist group in the way that the IRA was, though. They're the government of a (previously) largely independent polity that ran its own foreign and domestic policy. The relationship between the IRA and the government of the Irish republic was often hostile or at least unsympathetic, even if many citizens weren't.

When it comes to Palestinians in general, Israel does engage in a lot of non-military efforts to try to limit terrorism. Some are flawed or counteracted by other things like the settlers, but most of the 'classic' civil counterinsurgency playbook (large scale economic investment, jobs, work permits, scholarships for students, medical treatment etc.) against insurgent militants is implemented in the West Bank.

It's easier both for domestic consumption and international relations (both with Western nations, which have themselves dealt with a lot of Islamist terrorism, and other Arab nations, who don't want to frame it as a 'war against Israel' that they might be pressured to take part in) for Israel to call the invasion of Gaza a counter-terror operation.

Algerian Islamists in the Algerian Civil War of the 90s?

All the IS(is) pop-ups?

The 1956 Battle of Algiers is another promising example of a successful counterinsurgency. The situation in Israel and Palestine today is eerily similar.

ISIS has been largely destroyed militarily. Even if it's not literally completely gone, it's a far cry from what it was at its height. The example of ISIS is also frequently invoked in Israel regarding what Israel should aim for with Hamas.

Marawi crisis? Featuring the Islamic MILF.

I learned about this from seeing a lecture PowerPoint with the cursed phrase, “105mm Gun as Direct Fire Weapon.”

Islamic MILF

Does Mia Khalifa have children?

I think El-Salvador is a good example, the cartels aren't exactly terrorists, but the difference is nominal for all intents and purposes. If El-Salvador can within months with their shitty military..

I think that question unnecessarily invokes history and empiricism when it needn't be, because the question most normies actually mean to ask is "is it even possible?".

The answer to that is, if Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan can be defeated, so can some rag tags in the desert. It's just that modern powers don't have the stomach to carry out a merciless campaign (high civilian toll) followed by prolonged occupation/brainwashing.

I don't know if Islamist terrorists in particular are a special case or not. My galaxy brained shower thought is that the Quran and the resulting set of potential downstream belief systems will almost always produce something that approximates Islamist/Jihadist terrorists, they never had a cultural moderation of the likes of the Nw Testament and the religion/scripture->lore is far too political to have any meaningful distinction of Church and State even in the space of conceivable ideas.

There are meaningful differences, though—I'm sure they'd immediately point to the palestinians thinking of themselves as a different people than the Israelis (which I would guess wouldn't be the case for the cartels), and, as you pointed out, the cartels aren't exactly terrorists. You can lock up all the cartels, but I haven't heard people suggest locking up the entire population of Palestine.

ISIS seems a better parallel to me.

I think China's treatment of the Uyghurs is an example of successfully suppressing Islamists. It's not exactly pretty, but it seems to work fairly well for them, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Western powers. They do seem to have the will to put boots firmly on their necks and keep them there for decades; perhaps that's what it takes.

I think there are a lot of big questions over what's happened in El Salvador that will take years, maybe decades to answer. Clearly it's an impressive achievement, on the surface of things. I suppose the question is how sustainable it is, what does the country look like in 20 years, etc.

El Salvador if true is one of the few cases where I had to "update my priors". I guessed that the demand for drugs are too high, and the money too good, and the cartels too scary and the officials too corrupt/scared, for anything to happen at all. Those caveats are the main barriers long term, but the fact that it happened at all is a surprise to me.

This is a mega crazy idea I have no evidence for, but I think the tail end ultra violent genes have largely been killed/exiled off in the more populated old world, creating a new mean. This probably didn't happen in the new world. Jailing almost 1-2% of the population, that too mostly young males yet to pass on their genes, is going to probably change the genetic makeup of the country.

I think there was some element of genetic pacification in the Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations as well, since the unmixed indigenous populations there are generally more peaceful than their mestizo and white neighbors, while up north (and possibly down south in Patagonia too, but I haven't checked) the trend is the opposite.

I’m surprised that it worked and my hunch is it wouldn’t be successful in many other countries in the region. I think it’s possible the military and police were less under the grip of the cartels than they are in other Central American countries, perhaps because the state was so dysfunctional that they previously operated with relative impunity and so considered it less necessary to takeover the institutions.

This is a mega crazy idea I have no evidence for, but I think the tail end ultra violent genes have largely been killed/exiled off in the more populated old world, creating a new mean. This probably didn't happen in the new world.

I've seen this idea bounced around by HBD-types and as far as I can tell there's not only no evidence for it, but evidence against it. Indians in Latin American countries are not broadly more criminal than whites. There's actually a negative correlation in Mexico between how native a state is and how violent it is. It's generally not Indians getting in cartel shootouts. Even as far back as the initial European contact, Spaniards always commented on the remarkable peacefulness and good order in Indian cities. Looking at the US, the hispanic homicide rate has actually been more than halved since the 80s, as the composition of hispanic immigrants shifted from largely-white northern Mexican Chicanos to heavily Indian Guatemalan/Salvadoran/etc. type laborers.

Shining Path in Peru was largely defeated militarily. The Peruvian government even armed, trained and deputized civilians with the authority to kill Shining Path members.

Generally speaking, I think people who say things like "you can't destroy a movement" or "there are no military solutions to this problem" are just people who do not want to see that particular movement or problem destroyed, and have to cloak it in the language of strategic wisdom rather than admit to their desires. I have a particular disdain for Arab liberal types like Shadi Hamid who claim destroying Hamas is complicated because Hamas isn't just a group of militants, but a government with a bureaucracy and employees and yada yada yada, we will need to find some way to live with them - the LTTE was all of these things and also considerably more advanced and sophisticated than Hamas, as pseudo-states go. ISIS had a government, a bureaucracy, courts, all of the mundane accoutrements of statehood, and somehow we managed to bomb it into oblivion. There are very few problems that violence can't actually solve, so long as you're committed to the necessary scale and force of violence required.

Similar kind of highly motivated argumentation to how you cannot possibly stop illegal immigration by protecting your borders.

Yes, the usual tactic is to present the problem as a fait accompli that must be grudgingly tolerated because nothing can be done to change it.

I wonder whether I do the same. Are there any standard conservative / libertarian / reactionary arguments that follow the same pattern?

Vast amounts. Forceful arguments based on tradition, existing law, the way things are usually done, a nebulous yet permanent human nature that can never be overcome, the obvious benefits of the status quo and the horrendous costs of change. It’s somewhat less hypocritical for conservatives to use these arguments though*. Besides, they are not entirely devoid of merit, in a limited form.

edit: * although I guess it's also somewhat hypocritical for conservatives to ask for a radical change in immigration policy or whatever, when they usually abhor change.

although I guess it's also somewhat hypocritical for conservatives to ask for a radical change in immigration policy or whatever, when they usually abhor change.

I don't see how it's hypocritical, they want change to the extent that it returns things to what they deem the ideal status quo, not that even all conservatives can agree on which year that was. You might as well call liberals/progs hypocritical for not switching out the entire legal code on a monthly basis, at which point the word ceases to mean anything.

I'd say that conservatives want change to optimize toward a status quo which matches nostalgia instead of history, which is why the reaction to progression is usually reactionary. "Things were better when [annoying/dangerous/good-thing-breaking new thing] hadn't moved my cheese."

Of course, now that conservatives have Noticed the thing which steals skins eating nostalgia and shitting rainbows, and have named it Wokeness, the status quo is considered the only defensible position.

An argument I hear a lot in conservative circles is "gun control just means the only people with guns will be hardened criminals". I'm not saying this is never true, but it's a simple fact that there are many countries with strict gun control and in which even hardened criminals have a remarkably hard time getting their hands on a gun.

Yes, many examples. And I think there's at least some degree of truth to these arguments:

  • There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, so any large scale attempts at gun control cannot work.

  • The government cannot significantly tax or otherwise confiscate the wealth of the ultra-rich because they will just leave the jurisdiction.

  • Attempting to regulate carbon emissions at this point won't stop climate change, and many of the biggest carbon emitting countries won't get on board anyway.

  • It's not possible to introduce effective mass public transit in most US cities because they have already been designed around cars.

This would be the book review thread, yes?

I recently finished Randy Shilts' And The Band Played On. I'm surely this book has been discussed here many times, but in short, it's about the early phases of the AIDS pandemic, starting from late 70s and ending in 1985 (the book was published in 1987). The book was actually written very well and engagingly, it is no wonder it is probably still the best-well-known "popular" work on AIDS, something I had seen referenced dozens of times before actually reading it.

It's so popular, in fact, that one of the things that I kept thinking about while reading was: how much has this book, in particular, affected how the world (over)reacted to the Covid pandemic? Let's consider some of the things Shilts talks about:

These days, the book is probably the most famous for its attacks on Reagan admin and its unwillingness to answer the pandemic early on, only belatedly getting into the game during the later phases when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop decided to take initiative on his own to send information on the pandemic to all Americans, recommend the use of condoms etc. This mostly seems to have less to do with social conservatism, though this plays a part, but rather the general small government agenda and unwillingness to use federal funds for new efforts.

Actually, this part of the narrative (about the book) might be a bit exagerrated, as Shilts basically portrays almost every public instance - not only the federal government but also states and cities, particularly New York - as slow to respond and uneager to spend money. In comparison, during Covid times, almost every government suddenly decided that money's no thing when it comes to saving lives, with many governments going quite deep in debt at least for a while.

The book is probably the second most famous for Shilts's anger against the 80s gay community, particularly its unwillingness to admit that having a new, mysterious but fatal STD going on meant that it's time to put limits on culture that encourages men having sex with hundreds and thousands of men, particularly regarding the battle by Shilts, some public health officials and a part of the gay movement to close the bathhouses in San Francisco and other cities. I've actually seen some people talk about these things - promiscuity in 80s gay culture, the bathhouse struggle - as some sort of forbidden knowledge that you are not wanted to know, even though they're front and center in, again, the best-known popular work on AIDS crisis (which was also made into an also-well-known HBO TV movie.)

Anyway, even though Covid and STDs are two very different things (a closer equivalent was monkeypox, and a lot of people seemed to fear that it would become an AIDS-like epidemic, but it seems like that after the health system moved on to implicitly treating it as a STD, it was brought to control reasonably quickly - of course, the infrastructure and culture for keeping actual STDs in control has improved considerably post-AIDS, especially among gay men), much of debates about lockdowns did revolve around places like bars and other places where a lot of people (gay and straight) mingle - usually not perhaps as closely as in the sex-oriented bathhouses, but still. Of course the devil-may-care, who-knows-if-it's-even-real, I'll-get-it-anyway attitudes like the ones expressed by number of subjects of ATBPO, like that of Gäetan Dugas, one of Shilts's gay villains, were denigrated as "plague carriers" and the like.

Alongside the bathhouse narrative, Shilts concentrated on the blood banks, which become aware at a fairly early point that their blood is contaminated and poses a considerable risk to hemophiliacs and many others needing blood transfusions. Shilts blames the profit-seeking motive, which is also mentioned when talking about the bathhouses (whose owners often made stack and were moves and shakers in the local gay communities), and there's many cases where the blood bankers and bathhouse barons are shown willing to refer to high-minded ideals about privacy and freedom when they really just cared about not losing the revenue streams. Of course with Covid, states were quite willing to run over businesses, even letting some (like bars) go under.

Shilts also shows the scientific community being unable to decide on a narrative early on (somewhat unfairly at places; Shilts almost seems to demand the scientists to have immediately converge on the correct narrative from the beginning, whether this was actually possible or not), and much energy being spent on, for instance, turf wars between European and American scientists on who actually found HIV and what to even call it. With Covid, the scientific community often seemed conspicuously willing to go in lockstep and offer recommendations even with paltry knowledge on what happens, like with the "Covid-is-not-airborne/no-actually-it-is" twists and turns, or the early decision that lab leak is not possible and all suggestions on it would be conspiracy theory, something that might actually have been mostly just European and American scientists being unwilling to do anything that would prevent cooperation with Chinese scientists on this issue.

One specific figure who was fingered as a source for must misery in ATBPO is none other than Antonio Fauci, who made an early statement that AIDS might spread by touch in some situations, leading to massive panic and increasing considerably people's unwillingness to be in any contact or touch with AIDS sufferers. Whatever Fauci's role with Covid was, it's pretty remarkable that after this AIDS debacle he still was the one who implicitly became the American pandemic czar, and I think one reason why he was so willing to take this role - fit or not for it - was the feeling that after his reputation being blackened by actions during one pandemic he now had the chance to repair it by tackling another one.

Again, COVID pandemic and its reprecussions are surely a topic that has enough material for whole libraries of analysis, certainly it can't be just be explained by reference to AIDS history, but I haven't actually seen people talk about this particular book in connection to its effect on COVID debate, so I wanted to hear some opinions on this.

Honestly, I'm hard pressed to see a real villain in this whole narrative (assuming it tries to depict one).

If someone wishes to open a brothel with exclusively syphilitic whores, while I think that's a fucking terrible idea, I don't see why it should be made illegal, as long as they weren't lying to their customers (who should also know what they're getting into). I consider the correct target for penalization/responsible for externalities to be the gay men who lied about having the disease (as in they were confident about it, not just at risk) and spread it to others. I mean, that's not just for gay men, anyone who non-consensually and knowingly infects anyone with anything deserves punishment.

While the response to the advent of AIDS is certainly suboptimal, as @gattsuru points out, that was largely an outcome of sheer ignorance and confusion rather than entirely malicious. There were no tests for a long time, no way to tell if someone had been infected (barring a small and easy to miss prodromal phase after an infection), and no way to detect contaminated blood. I'm sure that the government did less than it could because gay men were disliked and marginalized, but not to the extent that I consider them evil for it.

The cause-and-effect chain was nowhere near as taut as COVID, and look at how much uncertainty there was even with modern medicine, epidemiology and stats. You have an insidious disease that only shows up in flagrant form years or decades after you were infected, and it must have taken a while to notice that it was gay men and hemophiliacs worst hit, and then to puzzle out the means of transmission in any robust way.

As for blood donations, there exists an optimal threshold for how strictly one wishes to screen blood. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis today, with robust screening, makes it eminently sensible to forbid those at exceptionally high risk of contagious blood borne disease. But if I'm bleeding to death and there's nothing better available, I would accept potentially contaminated blood, yes, even with 1970s medicine. Dying in a decade beats dying today.

One specific figure who was fingered as a source for must misery in ATBPO is none other than Antonio Fauci, who made an early statement that AIDS might spread by touch in some situations

Well, if you wish to include the touch of a tumescent penis against the rectal walls, he's not not entirely wrong. (This is a joke, begone humorless pedants)

If someone wishes to open a brothel with exclusively syphilitic whores, while I think that's a fucking terrible idea, I don't see why it should be made illegal, as long as they weren't lying to their customers (who should also know what they're getting into

It's because they don't know what they're getting into, and will also spread the disease to others. They're stupid, both in an objective sense and also subjectively in terms of their future preferences. Rational agents wouldn't use the syphilis brothel! A nation made entirely of intelligent and rational ideal agents would've already fully eliminated every STD of significance by at first spontaneously agreeing to, and then nationally coordinating, a set of practices for testing and condom use. It's not actually a difficult problem if everyone involved can consistently follow simple rules and tolerate minor modification to their behavior in the long-term interest of the group. They can't, though, and sex seems to make people deviate from theoretical rationality an awful lot more than usual (or, in terms I prefer - be retarded), so the state should step in.

Oh I understand that there will be negative consequences from such a prestigious establishment plying its trade. However, I am libertarian adjacent enough that I don't think the State should be in the business of demanding its citizens engage in nothing but "optimal" behavior (which is inherently subjective).

I would personally prefer that it attempts to price in externalities, and mainly stick to ensuring truth in advertising.

Freedom, without the extension of the freedom to make bad decisions isn't much in the way of freedom after all. What principled reason is there for the government to stop people from getting syphilis willingly when they aren't allowed to force you to jog every day or eat your veggies? What I personally seek to minimize is the harm to others who are indirectly affected, say by the new syphilis aficionados spreading the disease to them.

If, for example, this was the case in a nation with nationalised healthcare, I fully endorse the government imposing heavy fines on the clap trap, which they are free to pass on to customers via their pricing. I would rather see the fines capture the costs of externalities rather than be intentionally punitive or intended to make it impossible to operate at any cost.

You might even deny people who are so fundamentally retarded access to free healthcare, but I still consider that they should have the right to be retarded.

What is utterly unconscionable and deserving of severe punishment, at least in my eyes, is involving people who didn't make informed bad decisions, such as lying to customers even through omission, presuming they expect prostitutes with the normal risk of giving them syphilis, or the fine purveyors of that establishment who hide their own condition from other partners.

A nation made entirely of intelligent and rational ideal agents would've already fully eliminated every STD of significance by at first spontaneously agreeing to, and then nationally coordinating, a set of practices for testing and condom use.

The sanity waterline as it exists today more laps at the toes of such intellectual titans than it dampens the crotch of the average human :(

To be fair to Shilts, he does highlight some people where the line between ignorance and confusion to at least motivated ignorance was blurry at best. One repeat character early in the book is Bobbi Campbell, and Shilts claims that he continued to go to bathhouses (allegedly, though to Shilts' skepticism, not for sex) even well after he'd started plastering posters of sarcomas outside of the baths.

Dugas (aka "Patient Zero", though this is a bit of a myth) plays a more plainly villainous role in the telling, and while some of that is Shilts exaggerating matters at his editor's prodding -- there's a rather infamous bedroom conversation that portrayed Dugas as intentionally spreading the disease, "I've got gay cancer. I'm gonna die, and so are you", that doesn't really make sense given Dugas' public positions at the time and may never have happened -- but him going to bars for casual sex while AIDS Vancouver was telling him to knock it off was pretty well-supported.

And this sort of thinking didn't die with him, or with the availability of blood tests; Shilts points to the theory that HIV required some other cofactor to progress into symptomatic AIDs. This form remained common among a weird baptist-and-bootleggers alliance of gay men and religious types if publicly marginalized into the early-00s! It was wrong as a behavior even by its own merits -- asymptomatic transmission was well-established by '85 -- but as incubation times became well-established the bootlegger side of this theory became more and more obviously self-delusion. I think the author oversells this, while downplaying other plausible arguments that were reasonably-but-wrongly held. For a lot of his focus time period, the effective advise was not to simply wrap it up or abstain from casual sex, but that far broader lifestyle (during the "GRID" days) or casual contact (until mid-1983, a lot of medical professionals believed touch or even indirect contact played a significant transmission method!) changes.

There's some other later bits about gay activists putting often-steep political demands to insure that new anti-HIV efforts would not become anti-gay efforts, most impactfully around the dawn of testing.

On the other side, Shilts' narrative is far more aggressive about the failures of virology and medical research as a class. There's some Goldilocking here: the NCI (and the original sarcomas fell under cancer) research too slow-paced, NIID research underfunded, the NIH uninterested except in the broadest health impacts, the FDA (which controls blood products) unwilling to piece together disparate symptoms to the specific disease, NIH funding too broad, statutory funding too over-specified. But the full combination did lead to a painfully slow understanding of the disease, and release and delayed adoption of blood tests, often marred by politics. These are villains in the more Brazil sense, but they're still villains by Shilts' version of events.

I'm certainly advocating for people who knowingly and non-consensually infect others with a lethal illness being slow roasted over a fire. If Douglas was fucking around, he deserves to find out, and not his unwitting partners.

Shilts points to the theory that HIV required some other cofactor to progress into symptomatic AIDs

My understanding is that HIV doesn't usually kill you by itself, it's the immune suppression that leaves you open to everything else (yeah, is it the bullet, gun or shooter who kills someone etc etc). But I think it's reasonable to call that a "cofactor", if you miraculously managed to keep a person with AIDS in a perfectly sterile environment and scrubbed their microbiome, I'd expect them to live a lot longer (not that deleting a microbiome is a good idea in the least).

Even the sarcomas are due to opportunistic infection by HHV-8 and friends.

So a cofactor isn't really a bad description as far as I'm concerned.

There's some other later bits about gay activists putting often-steep political demands to insure that new anti-HIV efforts would not become anti-gay efforts, most impactfully around the dawn of testing.

I don't blame them, I can easily see how it could have gone that way. Of course, I am not necessarily opposed to mandatory testing, for human beings who have any reason to interact with anyone else, which is just about all of them. I've browsed enough /r/Grindr to know that while some of the more fastidious ones can make a song and dance about using condoms, getting tested and PREP, if the bussy is tight enough they'll usually relent. I'm sure most straight men would do the same, if they had even the same OOM odds of getting casual sex on demand.

Looking at the horndog behavior of gay men today, even accounting for how HIV has become largely inconsequential with modern anti retroviral therapies, I think revealed preferences strongly suggests many/most of them are willing to die sooner if it means they can bareback more partners. Sure, I have nothing against them for doing so, that's their prerogative, and I doubt there's a significant number of utterly naive gay men around who have no idea what that practise entails.

These are villains in the more Brazil sense, but they're still villains by Shilts' version of events.

I could well be overstating my competence, but if I was in charge of the CDC or FDA, I think I could, at least with a bit more study of epidemiology and stats than my standard curriculum provided, have done a better job than the incumbents during COVID. Certainly I would have at least deferred to superforecasters or polymaths like Zvi much earlier, if I felt I couldn't handle it. I would certainly have pushed for the end of lockdowns and masking much earlier than they petered away.

But putting myself in the shoes of the FDA/CDC in the 70s? I can't see myself doing better really.

My personal definition of villainy, even for institutional incompetence or sub-optimality, isn't that harsh.

But I think it's reasonable to call that a "cofactor", if you miraculously managed to keep a person with AIDS in a perfectly sterile environment and scrubbed their microbiome, I'd expect them to live a lot longer (not that deleting a microbiome is a good idea in the least).

There's an increased rate of certain wasting cancers that start to occur after certain thresholds of HIV infection hit, but that wasn't recognized until the late 80s, but the theory I'm motioning around was a little different.

The (later disproved) hypothesis was not that HIV alone couldn't directly kill you short of other external factors, but that it would not progress to immune deficiency in a large portion (usually 50-95%) of those who carried the virus: either their immune systems would fight it off, or it would only have some marginal impact that would never progress to recognizable symptoms. Usually the claim was that full-blown AIDs was limited to those who abused certain hard drugs or had diseases like hepatitis, though more rarely they'd point to a genetic or full-body health version.

This wasn't as crazy at is seems at first glance -- some healthier people, and those with lower initial viral exposures, often did have much longer incubation periods, at a time where all of the virologist modelling expected an incubation time in the area of months or a year. And some of the craziness that did come about wasn't just limited to the self-motivated gays, as even before HIV was isolated or AIDS formalized, the NIH spent as much time seriously entertaining theories about poppers or sperm causing the immune deficiencies due to their chemical makeup, rather than a viral contagion. Shilts has a section where one of the early gay activists does a statistical analysis for the known cases among the (wildly) sexual active men, their expected number of sexual partners, and claimed times of original infections a year earlier, and then comes up with some astronomically low odds ratio (billions-to-one?) for the then-current number of cases.

But then it turned out the disease couldn't be transmitted casually, and almost all of the healthy people in that analysis ended up just being in the incubation stage, probably had reduced T-cells even at the time, and eventually developed symptomatic AIDS, and a large portion (around two-thirds?) died before protease inhibitors were on the market.

Of course, I am not necessarily opposed to mandatory testing, for human beings who have any reason to interact with anyone else, which is just about all of them. I've browsed enough /r/Grindr to know that while some of the more fastidious ones can make a song and dance about using condoms, getting tested and PREP, if the bussy is tight enough they'll usually relent.

That's part of it, but there were also expectations that the tests could and would be used as a proxy -- both to blacklist HIV-positive men from places and activities where they would not be at unusual risk of transmitting the virus, and to Notice men who got tested repeatedly (even if they tested negative) as gay and having gay sex at a time where this was often illegal.

But putting myself in the shoes of the FDA/CDC in the 70s? I can't see myself doing better really.

Dunno. It's easier, looking back that far, to see what of our vision is hindsight, but there's also a lot more fog between the mistakes of that era and today. Shilts focuses a lot on the homophobia -- and while he exaggerates the sense that the CDC didn't care about gay men dying, he isn't totally unfounded -- but there was a lot of fatheaded provincialism and simple status quo bias, too.

Dugas (aka "Patient Zero", though this is a bit of a myth) plays a more plainly villainous role in the telling, and while some of that is Shilts exaggerating matters at his editor's prodding -- there's a rather infamous bedroom conversation that portrayed Dugas as intentionally spreading the disease, "I've got gay cancer. I'm gonna die, and so are you", that doesn't really make sense given Dugas' public positions at the time and may never have happened -- but him going to bars for casual sex while AIDS Vancouver was telling him to knock it off was pretty well-supported.

Shilts actually doesn't spend that much time in the book on the specific "Patient Zero" claim, which seems like a bit of a red herring by Dugas supporters to concentrate on anyway, but there's multiple scenes of people reporting that Dugas (or someone matching Dugas's description) knowingly bragged of spreading gay cancer or the disease, not just the most infamous line.

On the other side, Shilts' narrative is far more aggressive about the failures of virology and medical research as a class. There's some Goldilocking here: the NCI (and the original sarcomas fell under cancer) research too slow-paced, NIID research underfunded, the NIH uninterested except in the broadest health impacts, the FDA (which controls blood products) unwilling to piece together disparate symptoms to the specific disease, NIH funding too broad, statutory funding too over-specified.

Yes, where I felt Shilts was being the most unfair was the parts where he accused the authorities of just doing something wrong but then had multiple conflicting views of what they were doing wrong. I also noted that Shilts blames the media for not reporting on HIV earlier and more aggressively, but many of the cases where media reported on it they seem to just have spread wrong views or caused panic; wouldn't earlier and heavier reporting just have led to more of that?

Re: Casual contact transmission of AIDS

One of the other great works of AIDS literature is of course Larson's Rent. Larson wrote many drafts over the years, and who had AIDS and how bad and how they got it varied throughout. In early drafts, which date to the late 80s, the hetero non addict characters are also infected, or assume that they probably are or will be from living in close proximity to infected persons. There's much more of a fatalistic tone to early drafts, everyone is going to die, even the heteros and lesbians and non addicts, and die soon.

As drafts progressed, Mark stopped having, then stopped assuming he would get, AIDS, and Roger's infection was more clearly tied to intravenous drug use and his dead ex rather than just sort of having it because idk reasons. Much of Mark's character arc becomes about surviving his friends, as Larson did, and documenting and immortalizing his dead and dying friends, but also the strange isolation of being the survivor, the normie of the group, the straight white non addicted ally.

Much of this reflected the progression of medical knowledge in real life, and the final script in turn has become more a period relic than a reflection of modernity, by the time the movie came out it had a totally different valence. Treatments were different, prognoses were different.

The song that really has the most currency to today's world, and best reflected how the world would progress, is probably Santa Fe, which predicted without realizing it the development of the restaurant industry in small towns across America.

I consider the correct target for penalization/responsible for externalities to be the gay men who lied about having the disease (as in they were confident about it, not just at risk) and spread it to others. I mean, that's not just for gay men, anyone who non-consensually and knowingly infects anyone with anything deserves punishment.

I get where you’re coming from, but imo you’re mostly going to encourage people to not get tested. I think you’d have to punish people for spreading it unknowingly, which actually has the reverse effect (people will (hopefully) want to get tested regularly).

There are contexts in which testing for various diseases is mandatory. It might be COVID screening, it might be something else, but certain services can well be denied to you on the grounds that you refuse a test.

In the particular case of AIDS, the worst of it was before we had tests available AFAIK, and right now, it is nowhere near the level of crisis worth sacrificing civil liberties for in most contexts.

If we had an AIDS equivalent about that was significantly more contagious, such as being transmitted airborne or by close contact, and tests for it, I would have few qualms about making testing mandatory for participation in civic life.

If I had to think of a solution to the spread of STDs, I would suggest an annual screening program available to everyone. Participation would be encouraged, but not mandatory, but if you skipped it and then infected someone with such a disease (presuming at least that the incubation is long enough you weren't plausibly infected after the screen was due), then you'd have the book thrown at you.

You could modulate the penalty on the basis of the severity of the particular disease, whether you had other reason to suspect that you could be infected or at high risk and so on.

For example, you're a gay hooker who consistently refuses to get assessed? All well and good, but if you manage to infect someone, then you deserve to be punished more severely.

I don't think such a system is the most pressing thing to implement, perhaps if there's a new and particularly annoying STD around.

The UK has some sensible options, such as mandatory reporting to contacts while keeping the anonymity of the person initially diagnosed. They get something like a text message telling them they're potentially at risk of an infection and to come in for a screen, but who infected them isn't outright disclosed. For more personal contacts, like the spouse of a person who is hiding their HIV, then the doctor is obligated to inform them no matter the protestations involved.

Book review thread!

My problem with the comparisons is that the strongest ones are also the most obvious. In particular,

and there's many cases where the [businesses] are shown willing to refer to high-minded ideals about privacy and freedom when they really just cared about not losing the revenue streams

is like…a stock villain. The kind of character young-adult authors add when they want to make readers feel a little more mature. The profit motive has been a bogeyman since at least the Gilded Age. And there was still enough post-2008 class warfare in the atmosphere to get people riled up. Was this a lesson learned from the Reagan era, or was the age of Gordon Gekko just less willing to intervene in capitalism?

The other standout is transfer of information. Does the book address how institutions shared their data? Because I’m imagining heated phone calls and corkboards with string. The kind of medium which makes for good TV but not necessarily the right decisions.

In 2020, we got to watch the COVID counters go up in real time. We didn’t get to see it, but the scientific consensus was congealing at roughly the same speed. The Internet makes stuff happen faster, but there’s still no way to speed up the real-world information. Every notion has to be preconceived.

I dunno, if you have people making profit on running a blood bank or a sex-oriented bathhouse, I'd image they would actually go and fight over their right to do just that if banning or regulating those things would cut into the said profits, especially if they can also just argue that it's not time to be hasty since there's no full certainty on how the virus transmits or how likely the blood is to be contaminated.

The other standout is transfer of information. Does the book address how institutions shared their data? Because I’m imagining heated phone calls and corkboards with string. The kind of medium which makes for good TV but not necessarily the right decisions.

Conferences and mail, mostly, as far as I've understood. Certainly the book couldn't make a comparison to the current, more rapid spread of information, since they didn't have a time machine.

I think Shilts puts his thumb on the scales a bit for that evaluation, especially for bathhouses.

He makes a big deal out of them as a "100-million dollar industry" and charging 5/10 dollars a head person, and that is an investment: the Club Baths would have definitely gone (and did eventually go under!) when closed. Totally fair point! But the other side of that's the extent the Club Baths founder had been a gay activist over a decade before opening his first bathhouse, and went into that field knowing it'd blacklist him from most normal ventures. When it comes to revenue and ideals, there's really little in And the Band Played On that really excludes the option 'both'; just what Shilts wants to portray.

More significantly, while Shilts mentions the long incubation time for HIV, the work as a whole kinda glosses over the extent that drove so many other problems. There was no blood test until 1985; understandings of the high real transmission rate and true number of cases were projections and guess-work, and often wrong (as you mention Fauci and the spit-take). He mentions as an aside different times where the expected incubation period increased -- ten months, a year, two years, five years -- but he only really talks about minimizing estimates of incidence to show obviously misguided activists. But they were only obviously wrong in retrospect: in many cases, they were doing the math and statistical analysis correctly, just with garbage numbers coming in.

I think there's a stronger argument for blood banks (though the strongest arguments come well after the 1980-85 block that Shilts focuses on), but even that has to trade off against the often-serious risks low available blood would involve.

Part of it is just 'never underestimate the stupidity and laziness of criminals'.

People smart and disciplined enough to plan and carry out something like that can find higher-paying jobs that don't put their lives and freedom at constant risk.

One of the plot points of City of God is that there’s a gang member who actually knows how to shoot, might be worth a watch.

I also like to complain about the stupidity of tv, so I can emphasize with your husbands irritation. But ultimately, being a gangster is a terrible career choice and the kind of person who thinks these things through will not be a gangster in the first place. In fact, any arbitrarily chosen smart plan concocted by a gangster shown in tv is probably more unrealistic in the end.

But I will never not be annoyed when someones monumentally, obviously stupid plan is portrayed as military genius because it's running on hollywood logic!

Because if they were smart enough to figure out those tactics they wouldn’t be gangsters?

Gangbangers are dumb. No, dumber than that. A bit more. Yes, functional retardation territory it is. Why else would many of them murder each other on the street, often for less money than they could make working minimum wage?

There's nothing that forces them to shoot handguns gangsta style, beyond that's what they think looks cool, leaving aside it is a woefully inadequate stance/grip which makes successful hits on target even more random than they already are in a stressful close quarters firefight.

Gangbangers are dumb.

Reminds me of this excellent scene from the show: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D3hD9ZbguIg

I don't see any dumbness out of context; just one person trying to intimidate another with a nonsense question, and their staying cool and holding frame by giving a friendly answer.

I thought it was gonna be the photocopier lie detector scene. .

The Wire has quite a few examples.

Was it the show where a character said that the one thing he'd never seen in all his years on the force was a criminal mastermind?

My understanding is that there is in fact, a certain degree of restraint in all organized crime in which violence is constrained or ritualised to prevent well, things from escalating too far. That is to say that sure you could aggressively murder all your rivals, but all you'd actually succeed in doing is destroying the illegal money making operations, scaring normies, making everyone hate you and attracting a lot of police attention.

Besides the 'they're idiots' angle, there is a lot of heat that rifles bring that your typical saturday night special would not. It displays a level of sophistication that law enforcement would gravitate towards as a problem. Also, using a sniper rifle requires a certain amount of training that might be better spent in a cough Private Military Company or similar endeavor.

Part of it has to do with the code of violence on the street corner. Taking a guy out from 200 yards away with a rifle does not show your manhood, swagger, and fearlessness. These men and boys on the corner want to be known and feared and you don’t get that from an assassination.

Now if we’re talking about the Marlo scenes where he is hanging out in the middle of an open park, I can’t say I’ve ever considered that before. It does seem fairly trivial that a gangster could get a rifle and take him out from one of the buildings.

But does anyone have the background in urban combat/organized crime to answer this question?

Oh no, zero , absolutely none. I do have extensive fictional viewing experience, though.

My theory is that there are two layers to being a gangster. The basic, underlying, one, the ultimate unit of crime (as well as politics, but let’s not get into that), is just one guy with a gun, who’s ready to kill, who doesn’t care about anything else. He has the power to inflict death on almost anyone, and so he’s extremely powerful. Even organized crime doesn’t have a good way of dealing with him, except numbers : there are always enough of them that they can guarantee retaliation if members are killed by the lone gunman. Small consolation for the dead mafiosi.

The other, superficial layer, is the perception of being ‘hard’, ie, close to this ideal killing machine, the basic unit of power. Gangsters who appear hardest can rip other gangsters off. As well as civilians. That’s their bread and butter, how they get, and get to keep, their money.

So, aside from stupidity, the reason they don’t snipe is because inflicting death is not their job, appearing ready to inflict death is.

I have a similar reaction to your husband to many gangster and noir films : why doesn’t the hero just murder the antagonist and bury him in the woods? It’s been established that he’s evil, your life and your family’s life is on the line, the police won’t help, so what’s the hang-up, hero ?

Civilians, because they are focused on the second layer/model, where they automatically back down against gangsters who appear hard, and because they have delegated violence to the police, have forgotten that they possess ultimate power too.

why doesn’t the hero just murder the antagonist and bury him in the woods?

I'd love to read some fiction where that is the premise. Anyone have suggestions for books where that's the case?

Jack Reacher? Joe Pickett?

There are also various books where the protagonist tracks a murderer who turns out to be the "good guy", and ends up letting them go or covering for them.

I love attempts to create accurate hitman/ruthless protagonists.

It would be great to see some guy just trying to make his way in life and bad guys screw with him. They do this with all sorts of 'ex mobster/assassin/special forces/spook' stuff, but there's too much action/drama.

I'd like to see it from the point of view of some regular seeming guy where antagonists just start disappearing after messing with him. The protagonist is very careful in a 'get them while they're sleeping at 3am with no witnesses or evidence trail' sense. They just start disappearing. No one knows why. The focus is on the gradual terror of the antagonists as they figure out something is terribly wrong. The film's scenes until the climax are mostly mundane by just implying what is happening.

Or from his POV: He’s an accountant, he’s not used to violence. He at first yields to the antagonist’s every demand, he’s terrified. Then when he realizes he has no out and his family is threatened, he doesn’t get angry and turns into the badass he was in a previous life like in those movies, he just sheepishly starts researching murder on the internet (not on his own computer, he’s not stupid). He commits murder like he would fix his own toilet: at first bumbling and disgusted, then relieved and proud of his accomplishment.

Meanwhile the bad guys assume literally anyone else murdered their accomplice. But for some reason they keep hassling him. By the fifth murder he’s become so blasé about the whole process that his cover is starting to slip (“Sure, I’ll pay you off, no problem, I love my family, I don’t want any trouble. Meet me in the middle of the forest with two large garbage bags and a shovel“).

This would be great too. Just any pro-social introvert normal guy who is just intelligent. Once there's a devastating event in his life like the murder of a loved one he just sits down on the couch for 12 hours thinking. Then there's research through a public wireless via TOR/VPN and a cheap laptop paid in cash. Then baddies start dropping.

There was a comment about gangbangers on The Wire recently. Would be cool to see something perpendicular.

Revenge is a morally fraught motivation, though. I’d like him to be completely in the clear morally: it’s both unambigous self-defense, and the bad guys are evil. The reason why a scenario like that is rare in fiction, is that society considers the use of violence, especially killing, to corrupt one’s soul. I don’t agree: just because we have delegated the killing to cops and soldiers, doesn’t mean we can remain clean. The blood they spill is on our hands too.

Society recognizes three categories: the innocent sheep, and then the violent, which are separated into two: evil wolves and somewhat good shepherd dogs (or as Team america puts it: pussies, assholes, and dicks). In all those movies you mentioned, the badass protagonists have been corrupted by their violence previously, they’re dogs in sheep’s clothing at the beginning, they are not like the viewer. I’d like the accountant to be, and to remain, a sheep. With bloody teeth.

Stephen King does this a lot. The Dead Zone, Dolores Clairborne and 11/22/63 all come out on the side of the "just shoot him in the face" solution.

  • Harder to keep a sniper rifle concealed than a submachine gun?

  • Escalation from "street gangs' kind of violence to "assassination" kind of violence will attract more cop attention?

  • Longer and more complicated setup = larger chance of getting caught?

You don't need a sniper rifle, a DMR chambered in 7.62x51 or even a half-decent AR-15 with an LPVO will more than suffice.

A 10 inch barrel on the latter will probably do the trick for engagement ranges within a few hundred meters, especially when you can quickly follow up with more shots.

At that point, it's barely bigger or even shorter than most SMGs, if not an autopistol. Easier to get too, if comparing semi AR-15 or AR-10 to anything with full-auto capabilities.

If you wanted to get really fancy, splurge for a suppressed AR in .300 Blackout, you can perforate fools with whisper quiet rounds, and not even wake up the neighbors downstairs.

I think you're a touch off base here. Yes, you can get a .308 with a ten inch barrel, but it's more regulated and it is going to be LOUD, and throw a fifteen foot fireball when you shoot it. Might as well fit a roman candle to your assassination gun. You're also going to lose all the power that would make you choose a .308 in the first place, because ten inches of barrel isn't going to get the round up to speed. Right about ten inches, a .308 round drops below the 2200 FPS mark at the muzzle, meaning you might as well use the .300 blackout because you've gimped the more powerful cartridge.

Now let's talk about the problems with .300 AAC. First, it's low power, essentially a pistol cartridge when suppressed. Second, suppressors are expensive and the legal process is lengthy. You can build or buy "solvent trap" cans, but those are on the police radar and they don't work nearly as well as proper cans. Third, even in the best case scenario, the noise is still significant and noticeable. We're talking 130 decibels roughly, and there is a phenomenon known as "first round pop", where the first shot in a cold can is louder than the subsequent ones. It's not hearing safe, the "whisper quiet" is more likely noticeably louder than a stadium rock concert or a jet aircraft.

Take it from someone who has a built-out suppressed.300, I wouldn't recommend it for an assassination.

Yes, you can get a .308 with a ten inch barrel, but it's more regulated and it is going to be LOUD, and throw a fifteen foot fireball when you shoot it.

I understand my initial comment might be slightly unclear on the point, but I meant 10" AR-15s chambered in 5.56 or thereabouts. That barrel length in 7.62 is a disaster. I mean, you might as well concuss your enemy to death instead of shooting him.

First, it's low power, essentially a pistol cartridge when suppressed. Second, suppressors are expensive and the legal process is lengthy. You can build or buy "solvent trap" cans, but those are on the police radar and they don't work nearly as well as proper cans. Third, even in the best case scenario, the noise is still significant and noticeable. We're talking 130 decibels roughly, and there is a phenomenon known as "first round pop", where the first shot in a cold can is louder than the subsequent ones. It's not hearing safe, the "whisper quiet" is more likely noticeably louder than a stadium rock concert or a jet aircraft.

Isn't .300 AAC a relative chonker of a round? I can't see how one can call it pistol tier even if it's subsonic. I expect the lethal range will be significant enough that an adversary with a handgun will be powerless to respond.

It's not hearing safe, the "whisper quiet" is more likely noticeably louder than a stadium rock concert or a jet aircraft.

Take it from someone who has a built-out suppressed.300, I wouldn't recommend it for an assassination.

I have seen claims of around 120 dB from other owners, but close enough, and it's still a 30 dB drop from unsuppressed.

I am under the impression that matters, a lot, because it potentially changes the overall sound signature enough to confuse people who would immediately jump to "gunshot", and at least by the time the round reaches the target it becomes exceedingly difficult to triangulate the shooter, even if it's not Hollywood-quiet.

Isn't .300 AAC a relative chonker of a round? I can't see how one can call it pistol tier even if it's subsonic.

With common subsonic rounds necessary for suppression, the ballistics are pretty comparable to the .45 ACP (or 10mm), a 220 grain projectile at 1k fps vs a 230 at 900. Of course, the downrange accuracy is much better, but in terms of power, we're in the same ballpark. You're not getting rifle damage at subsonic velocities.

Getting pinged at by a regular scoped PCC from some rooftop inside +/- a hundred yards sounds like a pretty bad time though -- I think it's mostly the honour culture aspect combined with gang-bangers having limited knowledge of modern gun culture/tech that stops this from being on the table.

I have consistently registered this exact complaint not just about television, but about real life. I am genuinely puzzled by why someone that wants someone else dead would prefer to engage in risky combat than hit them from a distance. With regard to the quality of shooting, I want to emphasize that it is incredibly easy to make consistent shots with a scoped rifle. Seriously, I can take someone that has zero prior training and have them consistently hitting within a couple inches of a bullseye at 100 yards with five minutes of instruction, and I'm not even good! At that distance, there is also no need for adjusting your scope it's literally just putting the crosshairs over the target, steadying yourself, and firing. The damage done by a single well-placed .308 round will also be much more severe than what one would expect with a handgun.

So, why does no one do this? A few reasons, some substantive and some speculative:

  • Most murders aren't hits, they're interpersonal disputes, deals gone bad, or engagements that weren't guaranteed to end that way. Outright hits are just not very common in the grand scheme of things.

  • There are de facto rules of conduct to gang violence. In one edition of Grand Theft Auto, firing at targets with a sniper rifle is met by a Mexican gentleman yelling, "sniper on the roof, they fight like girls!". This appears to be a more or less genuine sentiment with regard to not walking up to your enemy and killing him at close range like a man.

  • Truly professionalized gang forces, such as Central American drug cartels, absolutely do use sniper rifles where it makes tactical sense.

  • In contrast to the above, these guys are basically morons, completely unaware of just how effective a lame looking Winchester Model 70 is for dealing with a target. They're not familiar with the weapon, they have no idea how to zero a scope, and the incentives of their line of work don't lend themselves to self-preservation. See also, any footage of shootouts between gangsters - these guys don't bother to properly grip the pistols they do have, which should absolutely blow your mind when you consider how hard it is to make a shot with one hand compared to a proper grip. Again, they're incompetent morons.

  • Finally, some combination of concealability and disposability are crucial. While I'm sure they could get on a roof with a hunting rifle, I'm also sure that they would be noticed getting on the roof with a hunting rifle, that there would be multiple cameras that would capture their action, that they would literally the only person on a roof with a rifle, that the sound of a rifle would be noticed, and that it's pretty hard to run away while carrying a rifle.

Another detail: maybe the biggest obstacle to securing a murder conviction is if you don't have the weapon. If you shoot someone in broad daylight, there's a logic to doing it with a cheap weapon you then immediately throw into the deepest, darkest hole you can find.

You are correct.

Drug dealers are in fact incompetent shooters. But it takes more than 85 IQ to figure out winning tactics for a gunfight, that amounts to anything more complex than spraying and praying at the general direction of the enemy. So to answer your husband, it needs more brains than... you know.

Mexican cartels are proportionately more competent in comparison even though nominally they are the same thing. Around 10 IQ points more competent.

Mexico’s average IQ isn’t much higher than the US black average, the cartels are just full of former Mexican infantrymen who provide direct training.

90 is a lot smarter than 85, it's not linear. And yes cartels have a better pipeline too.

I don't think they'd ever dare to do this, even if they had the ability, because a sniper gunning down targets in a major city automatically sends off alarm bells at the federal level. You're basically asking for the FBI to crack down on you. Certain tactics just aren't worth the heat they bring. There's a scene along those themes where the state senator rips off Stringer, and Stringer tries to get Wee-Bey to kill the senator in retaliation - Avon immediately shuts it down because a political assassination means the feds take over from the local cops and life gets much harder for the Barksdale crew. The powers-that-be will tolerate petty handgun killings, or at least leave it to the cops, but anything resembling military tactics or political vendettas from organized crime will naturally be assigned a much higher level of importance.

A lot of excellent posts here, making the point about a lack of intelligence and training. I'm going to argue a separate and related point: a lack of sangfroid, bloodthirst, psychopathy, a lack of willingness to kill.

Most ordinary humans, including gangbangers, have a reluctance to kill directly in cold blood. Most humans will kill in the right circumstances, will fight under pressure or in a group, but left alone to make the single decision to pull the trigger on a sniper rifle? Different mindset entirely.

A driveby, or a group of guys walking up, is high pressure, impulsive, when you get there you are in danger and must act to "defend" yourself or you might die, and it is a group activity your friends are there to keep you accountable. A sniper on a rooftop is solitary, is waiting and watching, he has to personally make the cold blooded decision to kill, he is in no danger and can choose not to act or to flee and avoid the danger.

If you are in a group of three guys in a Ford Explorer, all hanging out the window and shooting wildly, there is a sense in which you aren't necessarily responsible for any individual death on the other side. In the moment, there is a lack of certainty: maybe I shot him or maybe my friend did. If you are a sniper sitting on a rooftop, you are certain that you are the one who did the killing.

Training a human to kill in cold blood takes a lot of effort, a lot of training hours to program obedience to programming, it doesn't happen instantly or perfectly. Militaries drill obedience into their men to produce a soldier who will follow their training and do what they were told without thinking about what they're doing too hard. Muzzle-loader era armies emphasized firing in volleys both for effectiveness, and to allow the average soldiers to avoid feeling personal guilt for killing, instead the emphasis is on duty and coordination with your mates. Modern armies emphasize coordination, with soldiers mostly engaging in covering fire on specific targets, soldiers are rarely asked to kill individually outside of their training, instead the emphasis is on doing your job for your mates.

Gangbangers similarly maintain discipline, such as it is, and accountability to your mates by putting their street soldiers in situations where they are directly with their friends, in danger, and must act to look good and brave and protect their friends. That is psychologically easier for the average person.

Others have already touched on this but if you haven't interacted with any of these kinds of people in the wild it's hard to understand how bad at making decisions they are. Taking a step back, think about how bad well educated, intelligent people are at committing crimes (for the most part) based off of what you hear in news reports. You'll be saying ARE YOU KIDDING ME ninety percent of the time, and that's people with a lot more reserve and resources.

People who get involved in this kinda thing are stupid, uneducated, incapable of foresight/planning, and obsessed with face and status in a very shallow way. If any of these weren't true...they wouldn't do it.

Even when you see some type of criminal activity with an enormous amount of skill and success (like SF car break-ins) it's because of a "monkeys on typewriters" type exploration of options by everyone seeing what they can get away with as obsessed to someone coming up with a good plan.

It's also important to keep in mind that the majority of people involved in the drug trade make like zero money, any form of job whatsoever would be more lucrative and stable. They aren't sending their best. The ones who do make money are typically off the street, not at risk, and capable of doing the things you are interested in seeing.

Others also hit on some of the "honor culture" aspects also - you get a lot more face from sneaking up behind someone and shooting them in the face.

Many quotes from the Wire serve as a microcosm, but Stringer's "are you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy" is a good example, especially when people are trying to apply sense but it's ultimately cargo cult thinking.

People who get involved in this kinda thing are stupid, uneducated, incapable of foresight/planning, and obsessed with face and status in a very shallow way.

This video of Ar-Ab's near-suicidal honesty went viral for a reason. Guess where he ended up. Keep in mind: he was actually one of the better off ones in that he theoretically could have had a rap career.

Or just follow Chicago drill. The main survivors did so by...moving away. Which some of them had to be threatened into doing by the legal system.

Smart guys from the ghetto stay out of trouble, get the hell out of the ghetto and don't join the gangs. The ones that do join climb quickly through the ranks and don't waste their time planning hit jobs. The more elaborate your plan, the more threads lead back to you. An expendable thug with an expendable handgun is a simple and affordable solution.

A gang cop who sometimes does security at the church I go to for extra money(this is extremely common in the US) said to me that most murderers and kidnappers he arrests are teenagers who don’t know anything except the nickname of the guy who told them to do it. So yes, expendable is a big deal.

This is a non-spoiler detail: later in the show one of the drug dealers has a chief enforcer who was ex-Army/Marines, and it's implied he served in Iraq. All these complaints and suggestions are more or less embodied by this character.

I would wager a considerable sum that your husband is at least a standard deviation smarter than the typical gangbanger on the violent end, for one.

But more to the point, gang violence is a memetic thing. These are dumb teenage boys with few opportunities and limited social support taken in by crime syndicates, whose training in violence begins and ends with ‘put the bullet in this end, point that end at the person we told you to kill’. They’re engaging in violence to prove themselves, not to accomplish an objective, because that’s the psychology of a teenage boy looking for belonging. Of course they’ll choose flashy, cool looking tactics they’ve seen on tv or heard reference to in a rap song, over much better tactics that look a lot more boring.

I mean, first off, it’s TV. Bigger, better organized Gangs in real life(cartels etc) have a combat edge over street randos, but usually to the level of, like, militias or security guards and not to the level of soldiers. But gangbanger violence films well, so that’s what they run with.

Second, gang war isn’t really like modern state-on-state war, it’s like pre-state tribal feuding which centers around raiding and reputational fluff to drive non-members out of a territory. Infantry tactics might be an edge, but not as big a one as you’d think- having a fearsome reputation in the criminal underworld is a lot easier(cheaper too) and comes from rule of cool compared to maintaining actual soldiers. Of course it’s less safe, but violent criminals are a lot less risk averse than the general population and street trash are the ones actually risking their lives here.

Plus, bosses might have an edge over the thugs, but we’re still not talking about geniuses here. These guys don’t know enough to create substantially better tactics, and they’re not smart enough to figure it out on their own. So they stick with what works- being seen to have the loyalty of brave and violent underlings. Sniping off a roof with a pawn shop deer rifle is easy and cheap, but it’s not visually flashy enough to make a reputation.

The Los Zetas basically did this from what I understand. A bunch of ex Mexican special forces guys decided to go into the cartel business and had an advantage over everybody else for a while. Like you said though, the original members got killed off or arrested after a while and the new recruits didn't have the same training so they lost their edge over time.

To extend the previous response a bit more, consider that the methods they use might be genuinely adaptive.

As you say, Bell doesn't try to optimize the violence. What would happen if he did? Suppose he decides he needs that one territory real bad, so he puts together a serious hit squad, trains them up in weapons and tactics, arms them with actual carbines, not glocks and shotguns...

...And then one of these guys gets nabbed for incidental stupidity, blabs to the cops, and the organization and infrastructure vastly increases Bell's exposure, so he goes immediately to jail for life.

...It works, and they go through a couple corners like the Reaper's scythe. The extremely unusual level of lethality, the weapons used, and the unusual tactics employed draw immediate and overwhelming attention from the cops, and massive police resources are diverted to tracking down the squad and the man behind them specifically. Go to the previous step.

...It works, and the cops for some reason ignore it. The dumb gangs are wiped out, the smarter gangs observe and copy, violence as a whole increases dramatically, the police come down hard on everyone. Bell likely is either killed by someone else being smart, or is sent to jail for life.

Gang war looks sorta like real war, if you hold your head at an angle and squint. It's easy to think that they're trying to do real war and they're just super bad at it. But in fact, they aren't trying to do real war, they're trying to do a peculiar kind of business where, in the words of P.J. O'Rourke, the only way to enforce a contract is with a contract, and plenty of enforcers. The shootings are an obvious net-negative, a necessary evil that it's in everyone's interest to minimize and avoid. And later in the show, when you get an actual, smart, ambitious, ruthless and efficient kingpin, he doesn't go for infantry tactics, he goes for discrete murders and meticulously hidden bodies, because the problem isn't killing the other guys, it's getting away with it.

A way to look at it would be that the last comment is why greater lethality doesn't arrive from the bottom-up, and this one is why it doesn't arrive from the top-down.

And later in the show, when you get an actual, smart, ambitious, ruthless and efficient kingpin,

We also had this with Stringer who ran the business another way, but the return of his boss really hamstrung him.

FC has it mostly covered, but I thought I'd weigh in about one specific little bit, the "high powered rifle and scope". People who don't shoot guns often think hitting a target at even close distance is easy, but it is anything but. The technical skill needed is relatively high and unlikely to be present in teh sort of people who need to take out opposing drug gangs. But let's say you got a guy who grew up rural and knows how to hunt.

Ok, you go buy a hunting rifle. If you get a scope package, this whole thing becomes harder because the scopes most companies sell on their guns are trash. Or you do your research, buy a decent rifle, get some recommendations for scopes, get good rings etc. Already this is requiring a fair bit of knowledge and around a thousand dollars. You get it all put together and you go zero the gun. Here you need a range of some distance, and at least twenty rounds of ammunition, maybe more. Not a lot of shooting ranges hood adjacent, so you drive out to the country to go to a commercial range and try to keep the staff from reporting on the thugged out hood rats now practicing their marksmanship with brand new rifles. You get zeroed. Then you pack all your shit back to the hood. We're going to assume short ranges of maybe thirty to a couple hundred yards, but if you want to set up "on rooftops", the height of the roof becomes very important. Shooting at steep angles is difficult, and requires specific training to do well. It changes the range math. But let's say the range is short enough it doesn't matter.

So you pop the guy, and now there's a .308 (or comparable caliber) slug somewhere and not many people get killed with long guns. Not a lot of long guns sold in a city. Not a lot of bangers with a bolt gun. You could destroy the gun, but would you rather destroy a two hundred dollar pistol or a thousand dollar rifle? It's hard to hide, the thing is four feet long. If you use it again, the police are going to link those crimes very early. Multiple bangers ambushed with a hunting rifle? A sniper serial killer? Gonna attract attention. Unlike handguns, some 70% of which are the same caliber, hunting rifles come in a staggering array of chamberings, making whichever one you choose relatively much easier to find even without a ballistic match.

Or, you could hand a fourteen-year-old a stolen pistol that retailed for $200 and have him walk up on a motherfucker.

When the Romans attacked the Gauls, the Romans stayed in formation. Focused on winning, the Romans stabbed below the shield line into the vulnerable legs and groins of the Gauls. The Gauls, heedless, charged into the Roman line in search of personal glory.

The Romans were "the man" who always wins. The Gauls were the hero who throws himself on the machine and dies a noble death that will echo in eternity.

The Romans are like Stringer Bell, who took classes at business school. He realized the straight game was 1000x better than the drug game for making money. But Stringer Bell's blood was "green not red". He was not a true gangsta like Avon Barksdale whose "heart don't bleed no slushie".

Your husband is thinking like a Roman, and not like the gangsta Gauls. He's right of course. But that's not the point.

Wow, living that Testosterone poisoning dao.

Amazing the amount of dudes who want to square up and take their life into their own hands over dumb shit.

A big part of it is that they don't know what they don't know. Violence is memetic, and they have received a particular set of memes that deliver these particular results.

Think about it. The individuals in question are part of a very particular form of gun culture: they live in areas where guns are de facto illegal, and where all the firearms use they've ever heard of or experienced is criminal. That means there's no range time, no formal training, no places to do the training, no people to teach. The high turnover from prison and fatalities means there's little to no institutional culture to build on, no accumulation of knowledge. What you get is lowest-common-denominator stuff. Actual training takes significant time and effort to deliver results even for things as simple as basic marksmanship under stress; where is a gangbanger going to get a thousand rounds of ammo and ten hours of range time? I've been in the gun culture my whole life, and I only recently learned about dry-fire as a training tool; where are they going to hear about it? How are they going to learn to mount a scope or zero a rifle, much less learn more elaborate and esoteric ideas like small-unit tactics?

Gangbangers appear to think of gunfights the way they think of fistfights: an act of raw imposition of will on another. They see using a gun in terms of chunky primitives: you shoot, they die, rather than the specific mechanics involved: situational awareness, contact, identifying targets, aiming, firing, reloading, cover, clearing malfunctions and so on. They don't think of guns as specific tools with specific capabilities that can be optimized for, they're super-knives that stab from range. The memes they've received shape their intentions and their methods decisively.

It's worth considering that, from the perspective of the gangbangers, what they're doing works. They've almost certainly seen multiple friends and acquaintances killed by the time they're old enough to participate, so they know that their forms of combat do actually kill people. Their form of violence is reasonably effective, derives them benefits in the form of honor, and the significant decrease in mortality is probably a feature, not a bug, since it generally increases survivability for all involved. Gangbangers generally are attempting to assert dominance or to make a point, not to annihilate the opposition like John Wick.

This.

I only recently learned about dry-fire as a training tool;

I have always been told that dry-firing (most?) guns is bad mechanically because certain pieces aren't meant to hit together repeatedly (hardened firing pins on non-brass surfaces?). Maybe more modern designs account for this? Or are you using dummy training rounds?

I'm definitely not an expert on this, so I'd be curious to hear more from someone who knows.

You can just get dry-fire snapcaps for this.

Maybe more modern designs account for this? Or are you using dummy training rounds?

Yes. Most modern guns can be dry fired no problem. If you're very worried about your striker or have an older/rimfire gun, a snap cap will fix you right up.

"Snap caps" are recommended for rimfire guns of any kind, and older guns; what extent they matter for modern semiautomatics is somewhat controversial. It's plausible that even new centerfire gun designs will still have increased forces on the firing pin or its surrounding structure when used with an empty chamber but attempts to experimentally demonstrate the matter haven't been able to show clear and obvious results, and modern firing pins are also cheap to replace.

For rimfires, the tip of the firing pin can hit steel on the breach face, as part of the design, and the difference between steel-on-steel and steel-on-compressable-brass is huge: people have experimentally demonstrated damage in <100 uses. There's a small number of rimfire revolvers that avoid this failure mode through some really clever design, though. Some rimfire rifles (such as the popular 10/22) claim that they've eliminated the problem with a firing pin stop, but that's only really true for relatively small counts, and heavy dry fire practicers have found out the hard way that this just moved the problem to a bent firing pin stop.

Older centerfire guns sometimes had similar issues, mostly pre-1970. GLOCK still recommends snap caps for very heavy dry fire use, and people have very rarely shown breach-face problems when not using snap caps, but they almost always are also the sort of people sending hundreds of rounds of very sketchy ammo through their guns.

You can get cheap all-plastic or plastic-rubber snap caps for common calibers at most reputable gun shops, but they're usually specced for 500-1000 uses, so if you're really into dry-fire drills, splurging for spring-based ones can be worthwhile.

Snap caps are also useful for ammo failure and clearing drills.

I had the same understanding, but there was a post here from one of our commenters with significant experience in the services, who pointed out that dry fire is in fact superior for training the mechanics of marksmanship. The way he put it is that dry fire is the study, and live fire is the test; I believe he recommended something like a 10:1 ratio. Given that dry fire is free in terms of money and maximally cheap in terms of effort (no getting your gear together, driving to a range, paying range fees, cleaning and maintenance afterward, etc, etc), this seems pretty reasonable. The idea, as I understand it, is that you practice acquiring and maintaining a sight picture while squeezing the trigger. There's no muzzle blast or recoil, so you see all the flinches and shakes and disruptions as they happen, and can work to get your process as smooth and fast and precise as possible. Then you switch over to live fire, and practice maintaining those good habits under real firing conditions.

thank you, I was drawing a blank.

This is roughly the standard in western army basic training. It's particularly useful for movement and engagement exercises that aren't directly related to marksmanship. Now that I think about it, weapons handling seems vastly more important than marksmanship in training to engage an enemy.


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