domain:twitter.com
gattsuru
1d ago
Yes. Some of that’s specific to (coastal) ranching, which has its own issues separate from human medicine, but point of care ultrasound has its pressures from a relatively remunerative group of technicians who do have a few genuine points about potential sources of error and also have serious financial incentives.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
I don't see much military use either, all that data will necessarily be related to Earth and they have a decent communication network as is. It might be an initial experiment for actual off-world datacenters, and also for processing signals collected by satellites themselves.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
And, well, it's not like there's nothing to the claim that SJ is the same sort of thing as the Nazis (by which I mean the literal NSDAP).
I would almost agree if you weren't literally using it as part of an argument for a mass killing of political opponents (one of the most Nazi like behaviors).
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1d ago
I asked if he was God
What do you define God to be? My definition of what God is is the Classical definition. "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
(only in very esoteric ways--not in any tangible way whose difference you'd ever experience)
I don't think you understand just how significant attributes are that you think are esoteric. Classical Theism entails:
-
God is closer to me than I am to myself. He is always at all times the source and grounding of my being. It's not a domino situation. It's more of a Molecules > Atoms > Elementary Particles > ... > God situation. God cannot blink out of existence. For one thing, it is not in His nature to do so. But for another thing, it would be the end of existence for everything.
-
Morality and the Euthyphro dilemma. Is Goodness a standard outside God or is goodness whatever God decides? Pick one of these and there are problems. Classical Theism solves this dilemma because Goodness is tied to God's nature and to ours. It is not a standard outside God, it is not an arbitrary decision by God, it is sourced in God's nature and flows out into our own natures. You hint at this, "if God were not Good then he would not be deserving of worship." I agree! If God and Goodness are different things there is a problem worshiping Him.
-
There is an order and explanation to everything. All is willed by God, there are no competing powers. There is a consistency to the universe that we can trust.
-
God is unchanging and perfect. He cannot become more perfect. He already is absolutely perfect and there is no defect in Him.
-
In His very nature we find the grounding and explanation of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.
If you take all this away, I'm not sure what is left that is worship-worthy. I'm not going to say "nothing," because I really would need a year or so to try to fill up the holes left by rejecting Classical Theism and see where the balance lies. I do know that when I was a teen/young adult, before I began to learn about Classical Theism, I was well on my way to becoming atheistic because Open Theism just isn't satisfactory to me.
Even when there are miracles, all that tells me is that there are things we don't understand about the universe yet or that there are aliens/fairies out there with superpowers. Especially if you believe like I do that humans have a natural psychic ability. The importance of God isn't clear until I understand His relationship with everything.
And this relationship with everything wholly informs what I understand to be the goal of the Spiritual life. This comment is already long enough but if you are curious about what I mean, "Fire Within" is one of the best books on the topic.
The reason I believe in God is due to firsthand experience. That's not to say that I've met him, but I've felt his Spirit and experienced miracles that are difficult to explain otherwise.
That's great, God loves all His creatures and it is certainly possible that you have experienced His intervention in your life. Most Catholics I know would say the same. I wouldn't say there are 0 philosophical converts to Catholicism, but the more normal situation is to have an encounter with Jesus, Mary, the rest of the saints, etc.
What would you say to someone who had a direct vision of God telling her, "I am He who Is, you are she who is not?" It's a very Classical Theist way for God to describe Himself
I have definitely heard God's voice. He told me who my husband was going to be. I honestly find it more surprising that someone hasn't heard God's voice than someone has, though perhaps it is hard to recognize.
Just as I see no need to say something like "I am human, and humans have parents, therefore I have parents," since I have met my parents personally, so too do I see no need to logically prove God's existence, nor do I think that such logical proofs can or should define him.
Fair, but there are biologists who do study such things and in general I expect you trust what they say about inheritable traits. Likewise, a personal relationship with God does not preclude trying to learn more about Him through the methods we have available, and many people do interrogate this area.
Let's say you have a wife who you love. Imagine saying, "I don't need to know more about her, I love her! Asking her questions about how her day went or what she's thinking right now would be getting in the way of the personal relationship I have with her." It doesn't work that way! Instead, love generates a desire to learn more about the beloved. Philosophy is one means of truth finding.
The majority of Catholics do not study philosophy. The majority of Christians are probably not Classical Theists. Open Theism has been very common for many centuries among those who aren't into philosophy. At least it's not Moralistic Theraputic Deism, which is what most people in America fall under.
You aren't sure about our ability to come up with satisfactory axioms. That's not uncommon. You are creating philosophical axioms in your comments that I do not believe hold water - but you are likely unaware that you are doing so. Rejection of philosophy does not mean you can get away from doing philosophy. Instead it just means you are doing bad philosophy.
One uncontroversial thing we can do with philosophy is demonstrate logical contradictions. This doesn't require the underlying axioms to be correct, in fact we are proving the axioms false. This is why most theology surrounding God's nature is called Negative - or Apophatic - theology. I can say a lot about what God is not, and He is not embodied, He is not limited, He is not confined to one place. He is not composed of many parts. He is not beholden to an outside standard of Goodness.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Fair.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
1d ago
Thus, the tit-for-tat strategy which (as I understand it) outperforms all others in iterated prisoner's dilemma.
In the presence of noise which amplifies defections (this can be unintentional defections, or one player wrongly perceiving the other player's co-operation as a defection), tit-for-tat is equivalent to defectbot. You need to play x-tits-for-a-tat for x<1 in order for a tit-for-tat-like strategy to support stable co-operation. (And if you opponent is playing y-tits-for-a-tat where y is slightly above 1, then your optimal strategy is to reduce x further such that xy<1).
In the real world (rather than Axelrod's experiments) there is obviously noise, and that the noise amplifies rather than suppresses defections is one of the oldest unfortunate facts about the human condition. So playing tit-for-tat, and even more so playing two-tits-for-a-tat, is equivalent to playing defectbot.
Right now, Trump is playing two-tits-for-a-tat, and his core supporters fully support him in this. The Democrats believe, arguably correctly, that they have been playing 0.9-tits-for-a-tat, and the "we need a fighter" debate on the Dem side is whether they should switch to playing two-tits-for-a-tat and embrace the downward spiral into continuous mutual defection.
Any attempt to have a sane conversation about this is likely to be derailed by the ultimate scissor of American politics - the 2020 election. If you believe that the 2020 election was tabulated honestly and that Biden won by more than the margin of sloppiness, then Trump's response to losing the election was the biggest defection since Reconstruction, and the milquetoast effort to prosecute the people responsible wasn't even a 0.9-tits-for-a-tat response. Whereas "The 2020 election really was rigged and the overly harsh treatment of the people who protested this is a mega-defection" was the grievance narrative at the core of Trump's 2024 primary campaign, and appears to be the words that an ambitious Republican needs to mouth to go along to get along under the 2nd Trump admin. The slightly weaker proposition that "Regardless of what actually happened in the 2020 election, the overly harsh treatment of the people who protested it is a mega-defection" is table stakes for an elected Republican in 2025 in the way that signing the Grover Norquist tax pledge was table stakes for Republicans in the 1990's. And if the 2020 election really had been rigged on the scale that Trump claimed it was, then rigging the election would itself be a mega-escalation such that a correctly calibrated 0.9-tits-for-a-tat response would be harsh enough that what Trump is doing now would count as milquetoast.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Thus, the tit-for-tat strategy which (as I understand it) outperforms all others in iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Yep, plenty of people have already explained why their revenge narrative is justified through similar arguments.
What no one has actually tried to explain though is why doing bad and stupid policies is a useful tool for revenge still. No one has yet tried to explain why it is good for government to buy up and own private enterprise. To me, it's like seeing someone burn down your house and saying "I want revenge" and then throwing molotovs at your own house.
If we believed that small government hands off policies were best for the economy, for jobs, and for national wealth (as other conservatives were arguing for decades), then doing the opposite of that is throwing molotovs at our own house is it not? We should want our country to have a strong economy with lots of jobs and growing national wealth.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
Are smart phones a Bostromian 'black ball' that just makes everything worse upon being discovered?
They inflicted mobile gaming on the world. They made social media worse I think. Dating apps proliferated. Sleep disruption. Short-form video in an ugly vertical format. People are watching movies on smartphones, it's destroying film. All these companies that make you install their app (it doesn't work).
Almost everything that can be done on a smart phone is done better on a PC or laptop. Cameraphones were good enough for communicating IMO.
Google maps is actually helpful but besides that? 2 factor authentication? Seems like a net negative to me.
georgioz
1d ago
Sometimes it is interesting to which depths this phenomenon runs, how self unaware people can be. Famously Marx extensively used the word ideology as a pejorative descriptor for ways ruling class keeps workers in the dark in the class conflict. Of course he piled all that criticism while keeping Marxism itself outside of such framework, as if it was implicitly true and correct stance and thus it could not be considered an ideology by definition.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
But the people of this viewpoint believe the faux-Popperian argument for real.
I don't know about that. As a fellow disillusioned-by-liberalism, I'd say it's much less about letting totalitarians get started, as that's a response from within the liberal framework, it's that liberalism itself is folly. You can't have "separation of church and state" or "neutral" institutions, you will always promote specific values. There are some values of liberalism I admire, but others I reject wholeheartedly, hence the conflict. I'm not a fan of them pretending to be tolerant, neutral, and above it all either, but the conflict would exist regardless.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
"Look what you made me do" - man doing what he was going to do anyway.
This definitely seems to be the main explainer, but it seems to be missing something. No reply has yet even tried to explain why government needs to buy up and own private enterprise, something you would expect them to be able to do if they truly believed it was a beneficial and sound policy and were going to do it anyway.
So what's the motivator there then? I think some of it is just circling the wagons, a generic ex post facto justification for decisions that they otherwise would find alarming and dangerous for big government to do.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
It seems to me that people who have adopted what you label "revenge narratives" generally no longer believe that there is such a thing as "our country" or "our citizens". Certainly I do not.
Well if you're no longer loyal to the nation that's up to you. But America is still my home and I want what's best for us and the citizenship.
Forming, equipping, and paying a police force is "stupid, inefficient, counter-productive, and prone to corruption" in a number of ways. It's just that it's less stupid, inefficient, counter-productive, and prone to corruption than not having police, given the situation we find ourselves in. If the situation were different, police might not be worth it. But it isn't, so they are.
Ok so having a police force isn't stupid, inefficient and counterproductive then. If you truly believe that the shifts on conservative policy are the same, then why not explain them on the merit?
Instead of "government has to own businesses because libs", you could explain how government owning businesses and directing corporate policy across the nation now improves the health of the economy after decades of conservatives saying big government and socialist control are bad the same way you can explain how police are good.
I observe that previous governments, Democrat and Republican, have chronically failed to exercise fiscal responsibility. I observe that attempting fiscal responsibility now will cost significant votes and political power, which will naturally flow to the fiscally-irresponsible. Therefore, I conclude that while I would strongly prefer fiscal responsibility, there is no way to get there from here, and so I abandon this as a political goal because it does not appear to be practically achievable. Therefore, I no longer care about fiscal responsibility or the debt, and I apportion my political priorities and values to areas where victory seems more probable.
Not pursuing something you find untenable as a policy goal is understandable. But do you now believe that ever growing debt is a good thing? Do you now believe our growing borrowing is a smart long term fiscal decision?
If you don't think you can convince other Americans to care at all it makes sense to give up, but it wouldn't make sense to change your mind just because of that.
And yet, the evidence has shown that they cannot prevent endemic free speech violations, nor even significantly impede them. When it mattered, they could not protect my speech in any meaningful sense, nor will they be able to do so in the future. Their impact is, to a first approximation, theoretical.
You're right, random civil rights organizations can not do much in the face of a population that keeps voting for and pushing for anti free speech politicians. In this same way they will have meaningful wins here and there against Trump, but ultimately unless we can get the population on board with traditional civil liberty and the first amendment, government suppression of speech will continue to grow.
The model they operate off, where only government speech controls impinge on the first amendment, is a suicide pact that I respectfully decline to involve myself in.
That's how the founding fathers set up our system, were they suicidal? No, they were forward looking revolutionary heroes. Their primary concern is government, and even today governments across the world are the most serious form of censorship. If you don't believe that, you can go look at other countries and you'll find it's government suppression of speech in Russia, in China, in North Korea, in pretty much every single dictatorship. Even in the freer nations, crackdowns on speech like the recent UK bill are government done.
magicalkittycat
1d ago
Ok, you still haven't addressed a single actual point as to why doing bad counterproductive and harmful policy to the US makes sense as a form of vengeance, just keep justifying that you want revenge.
Pitt19802
1d ago
Can I ask how old you are?
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but this reads like something I might have written between 20-25 or so.
I think a big part of transitioning from the academic universe to something approximating the 'real world' is that no one is going to walk you through life.
It's on you to pull out the bits of advice that resonate with you and decide to try those out, then decide which of those you want to keep trying, which of those you want to stop trying, and what you want to try out that no one advised you to do.
You get to decide the itinerary, you get to decide the score card too.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
1d ago
More and Pompey didn't lose by playing cooperatebot against defectbot.
More never tried to fight the Reformation Parliament and the Succession Oath - it was as obvious to him as it was to everyone else that with the King's mind made up there was nothing to fight. Saint Thomas More was playing a different game, with the only prize worth having in his estimation not being of this world, so he decided that martyrdom was a better alternative to going along to get along.
I'm not going to litigate which of Pompey and Caesar defected first, but at the critical decision point they are both all-in on defection - Pompey just lost the resulting war.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
For most policy positions, the revenge effect is not there. If the other party bans abortion or immigration, you will not be tempted to do the same in retaliation.
The retaliation is mostly on procedural norms which get changed to wage the culture war. If your side is firing all the federal employees who support the other side, then my side will do the same whenever it is in power. If your side is deploying the national guard to unfriendly cities, then my side will deploy the national guard to unfriendly cities. If your side is rounding up residents and deporting them to El Salvador megaprisons without due process for having some tattoos which may or may not be gang related, then my side will interpret displaying a confederate flag as renouncing one's US citizenship and deport them to Venezuela, so your side will retaliate by doing the same for the pride flag.
Of course, it is hard to play tit-for-tat with perfect proportionality, because situations are not symmetrical. So things escalate over time.
functor
1d ago
I have a metal water bottle which got squashed. I filled it with water and put it in the freezer and it popped back out.
cae_jones
1d ago
Ultrasound is in a weird spot because it's evolving from a "nobody in the ED to can do this" to "we are starting to train everyone from day one to do this because its safe and cheap" but we are in the middle of that process. Wouldn't be shocked if in 5-10 years most PCP offices were doing it.
Wasn't there a story recently about a farmer getting in trouble for doing his own Ultrasound on his cattle? It made it sound like it's taking longer than it should to liberalize for reasons that sound ... guildy?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
(None of these are exactly my own views. This is an ironman post.)
Okay, so, you've probably heard of rabies. It's an incurable disease (at the very least it used to be, and it still is once symptoms appear) spread by biting that makes people bite others and be violent and semi-mindless in general. In real life it's also invariably fatal, which drastically cuts down on humans' ability to spread it to >1 other humans. But imagine a rabies that didn't do this - rabid people didn't die of rabies (or of thirst), they just stayed violently insane for the term of their natural lives. Imagine further that we didn't have a vaccine against it (this was even true until recently). Call it super-rabies. Or peeps. Or the Zombie Virus.
So, let's say that with the incubation period and everything, 5% of your population caught super-rabies before your government got around to noticing and acting. Now, what are you going to do about it?
- You can't just let super-rabid people walk around until they bite someone. Proof: since such a bite transmits super-rabies and you're letting the bitten person walk around in turn, this doesn't deplete the supply of super-rabid people walking around free to bite people (and indeed it will increase unless your response to a bite is instant, as some will bite a second person). Everyone will get infected, no more civilisation.
- You can't imprison them. You're talking about 5% of the population, and you can't either stick them with each other (well, you could, but they'd likely kill each other) or put them individually in less than the most secure facilities (because they'd bite the guards/staff, which will gradually increase the amount of people you need to imprison, not to mention the question of who'd volunteer to take that risk). The expense would bankrupt society, and then they'd escape and civilisation falls again.
You have to kill them. The lunatics already gone bitey? Mow them down with machine guns. The ones potentially bitten? Imprisonment for the incubation period, kill them if they go bitey or if they offer the least resistance. People protecting the super-rabid? We don't have time for this shit.
Yes, they're still human. Yes, they're innocents, insofar as they didn't choose their damnation. But you don't get to have a society that cares about respecting innocent life if you don't have a society. This is a state of exception; you mop up the existential threat as quickly as you can by whatever means are necessary, and then you go back to enjoying the sweet fruits of your bitter, bitter labours.
In case you haven't worked it out by now, some people think of SJ as an existentially-dangerous meme via undermining law and order. The analogy's not perfect - social justice warriors are far better at scheming than the rabid, and believing SJ is not always permanent - but you get the point.
That's one viewpoint. Another is that SJ is not itself an exceptional threat, but is an obstacle to solving other exceptional threats such as WWIII or AI by forcing every single discussion onto simulacra levels 2 and 3 (e.g., the initial SJ reaction to Covid of "the real issue is people using worries about infection as excuses for hating Asians!") or just by it directly focusing excessively on internal, day-to-day political squabbles and missing things that haven't come by in a while. (One thing that I will note about this viewpoint is that it's quite time-dependent. Mounting a massive anti-SJ crusade weakens you in the short-term in exchange for strengthening you in the medium-term; if you think crunch time's imminent, as I do, it's too late.)
Yet another is those that actually, seriously, have given up on liberalism. SJ's excesses have convinced them that liberalism was a mistake. They actually have come around to believe those SJ tracts about how you can't have a free society without banning a bunch of ideas; they just think SJ itself's the weed that needs to be removed. And, well, it's not like there's nothing to the claim that SJ is the same sort of thing as the Nazis (by which I mean the literal NSDAP). Try reading the Wikipedia article on Gleichschaltung, for instance. You couldn't just have a youth club in Nazi Germany; it had to be a Nazi youth club. You couldn't just have a bowling club; it had to be a Nazi bowling club. Now, go SJ-spotting around the Internet, or real life, particularly in June. You can't have a nerd forum in the SJ internet; it has to be an SJ nerd forum. You can't just have a medical establishment; it has to be an SJ health establishment. Those subscribing to this viewpoint think that liberalism is just letting these kinds of totalitarians get started. (NB: while I use a popular SJ infographic for demonstrative purposes that claims to talk about Popper, I am compelled to note for educational purposes that this is not what Popper actually said. But the people of this viewpoint believe the faux-Popperian argument for real.)
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
It essentially implies the difference between the right wing and left wing argument about things are about morals and not about the effectiveness of policy or economic ideas for the good of our country and our citizens.
Do you think people who criticize Nayib Bukele question the effectiveness of his policies?
hydroacetylene
1d ago
It seems very likely that everything you’re saying is true but thé limited NHS budget wasn’t getting stuck with the bill(thé Italian government and the pope were gonna take care of it). What this actually looks like is petty bureaucrats being thin skinned self important control freaks- again, thé NHS wasn’t being forced to treat them, wasn’t being asked to pay to treat them, was merely being asked not to prevent seeking treatment in a foreign hospital.
It only connects all the major cities of the world if
- It can fly supersonic over land. At the moment the discussions between Boom and the Trump admin are on the basis that they will only be able to fly supersonic over CONUS if the boom doesn't reach the ground, which means slowing down to Mach 1.3 and increased fuel consumption. The politics of Concorde was that countries that didn't build it were disinclined to be generous about letting it fly in their airspace, and Boom will face the same problem with countries that are not the USA.
- They release a plane with long enough range for trans-Pacific routes. (Overture has a planned range of 4250nm and LAX-Tokyo is 4768)
- The economics of an all-business class service (which requires 80% occupancy, mostly at full-fare, to break even) work out on enough routes. Apart from a long history of failed all-premium operations, the big problem they face here is the lower supersonic premium on eastbound flights - a 4-hour supersonic TATL is too short to work as a night flight but doing it as a daytime flight means that you lose 5/6 hours work time to the time change. A flat bed on a subsonic night flight offers a lot of people a better value proposition for their $3500. Concorde had to sell cheap eastbound tickets as a bucket list experience to fill the plane.
Right now the only city pair which has supported an all-premium flight sustainably is London-NYC*, and it currently doesn't. The British Airways Babybus is a pretty direct comparator to what Boom would be offering (all-premium service marketed to full-fare business travellers that offered significant time savings by running from London City and pre-clearing US immigration while refueling in Shannon), and the economics was marginal. (It was cancelled during the pandemic and never reinstated). As well as the problems selling enough full-fare business class tickets to keep the plane flying, there is the issue that most of the airports that might welcome an all-premium flight are slot-constrained, and a 777 makes more money out of the slot than a small all-premium flight.
You need fat point-to-point routes to make Boom work, which are long enough for supersonic flight to be worth it, short enough to be within range, and mostly over water. On day 1 that means the premium trans-Atlantic city pairs only. Business travellers won't use a less-than-daily service, and the whole point of flying supersonic is lost if you end up with a layover when a non-stop subsonic flight was available.
It's a great product (assuming they can actually build the Symphony engine, which I rate as a 70% shot) and if they do sell a $7000 LHR-JFK return I will probably fly it. But "Concorde at a third to half the price" gets you regular supersonic service on 10-20 city pairs vs 1 - not a transformation of the airline industry similar to the 707 or the 747. Boom are not proposing to change the physics of supersonic flight or the economics of the airline industry.
* London-NYC is comfortably the busiest long-haul city pair, with about 40% more seats than London-Dubai in 2nd place (overflies densely-populated Europe so probably not supersonic-friendly) and almost double number 3(Paris-NYC). Number 4 is London-LA (out of Overture range if they have to slow down over land) and number 5 is Singapore-Melbourne (dependent on Australian government permission to make sonic booms over the Outback). Tokyo-Singapore and Seoul-Singapore would be perfect supersonic routes if they were fat enough to support daily service, which appears to be marginal.
TeknOShEeP
1d ago
Metalworking? No- despite the popular misconception water and ice are considerably more compressible than essentially all metals. You'd probably want something more along the lines of Dexpan, which when mixed with water can (according to the tech specs) provide 18 ksi of compressive force, which might be enough to form some softer metals like copper or aluminum.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Yes
Again, I get why people justify their revenge narratives.
Just no one has even tried to explain how exactly government buying up and owning private enterprise is a smart idea (something that we've been saying isn't good for decades) and why it's a solid goal towards improving the nation's economy and wealth.
Bernie Sanders at least tries to explain this, because Bernie Sanders is a socialist who thinks capitalism is bad and corporations are just greedy and needs big government regulations to spank them. I've yet to see much attempt to explain it from a new conservative side, and the little I do sounds very similar to the socialist one (same way I keep seeing "greedflation" in some right wing populist spaces).
Ironically it seems to be one of the things the new right really hates. A new big government socialist minded capital hating populism that has invaded the traditional minded conservative thought and crowded out the original inhabitants.
The traditional conservative like the Reaganites would explain government imposed market distortions, the folly of protectionist policy, etc. The new conservative says "companies are greedy, they raise prices because they got even greedier"
More options
Context Copy link