domain:imgur.com
Tree
2hr ago
If you could, why would you not spend a few million to inflict hundreds of millions in damage to the enemy?
I suppose the smart, the russian-soviet way to spend money and lives, is to use AA missiles to shoot down cheap drones, or to kill one of their guys in exchange for one of Ukraine's, so that russia can brute-force its way to victory and its population to extinction. Much more sporting.
You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position.
Well yeah, your plan is ugly and weakens ukraine's position, as you note. This plan was beautiful and gave russia a black eye. Apples and Oranges.
If you liked the magic ship series you should definetly go back. The assassins series is set in the same world (but a different location) and is arguably superior.
I'd recommend all her books except the soldier son series. She likes to challenge or torture her characters but I found that series too bleak for my tastes.
yofuckreddit
2hr ago
In my (admittedly most extreme) example we're literally talking about people who start by murdering, raping, and robbing other people their whole lives.
Then they have more children, addled by drugs from birth and neglect from the jump. Who kick things off by consuming vast quantities of resources from families that adopt them. The exact same problems, but geometrically multiplied for each generation. And they're fast too, because getting knocked up the first at 16 means more meth quicker.
These are rare examples, yes. Fractions of a percent. But to repeat: it's not a morally superior stance to look at the rivers of blood and treasure consumed by tiny fractions of society, then to just throw up your hands and say "oops, guess we can't fix it!". It's the absolute worst version of the tragedy of the commons.
TIRM
2hr ago
critique of a nebulous “elite”, the only point of which is to spread a general mistrust in whoever happens to be in power
But enough about their wise and desirable traits.
My main complaint about the other side is their unthinking reflexive trust and support for their favorite elites. Seemingly changing their opinions and values on a dime when "the science" or some cabal of would-be technocrats sends out new positions for right-thinking people to hold.
There's a level of distrustful contrarianism that is maladaptive. The opposite of is is not necessarily wisdom. But conservatives are onto something vaguely distrusting our self-appointed elites. Correctly recognizing that taking orders from the vanguard of the opposition is not a good idea.
SkoomaDentist
2hr ago
How dare you suggest anything like that?!
SkoomaDentist
2hr ago
Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives.
Indeed. What possible reason could the Ukrainians have to make the war more costly for Russia by striking against targets that Russia can't easily replace. It truly boggles the mind... /s
TIRM
2hr ago
essentially nobody in the West has a stake in Gaza that makes it worth protesting about.
American Jews with family in Israel or even family killed on Oct 7. The last American hostage held in Gaza was released a couple weeks ago. A "let our people go" walk is relevant to some Americans.
remzem
2hr ago
Not really, you want to do damage to conventional weapons, not nuclear fleet. You're in a conventional war, you won't win with random deep strikes on weapons that aren't being used in the war. You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position. The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays. So they are eternally confused by eachother. It reminds me of the battle of the sexes.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3hr ago
Or you know, suicide you. I think the hint is large enough at this point.
gattsuru
3hr ago
I woke up today and didn't have "read Josh Blackman being too charitable to the squishy center of the court" on my to-do list.
gattsuru
3hr ago
Not sure I could advise anyone I care about going to a protest armed either. Just having the CCW puts you in an untenable position here -- you get pushed to the ground by an unarmed person, now you're in a no-win place.
From a tactical perspective, perhaps. From a process one, that's either a demand to show up to a flamethrower fight with your fists, or to surrender the public square to the first group that brings violence.
Really we need a renewed commitment from law enforcement to do their jobs and stand between the various groups and let them each say whatever.
If you've got a unicorn, I'll take that, too. But while it's been an issue in previous cases like Kessler or Dolloff, it's not clear that it's what matters here. These particular protesters have been doing this walk for a year without serious counterprotest, and none of the news reports (for whatever you believe them) suggest that the attacker was operating with counterprotesters. This was, as far as I can tell, out of the blue.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
3hr ago
Hah I have read almost all of these except for the Black Jewel. And never finished WoT rip. Thanks for answering though. Malazan is the bomb.
SSCReader
3hr ago
Depends on the exit poll. You can find 56% (Guardian), 52% or 49% depending on where you look. I took the high end because if that doesn't count as droves then neither does any lesser number. You could split it and say it is roughly 52% plus or minus 3 maybe.
Really we'd have to define the terms of what does greater problems and droves mean before any of the numbers can tell us anything. For me "droves" would have to be over 60% at least and consistently getting under 50% would be greater problems attracting X. But that's really just squinting at it and going off vibes. One could make reasonable arguments for very different numbers I am sure.
Tree
3hr ago
It seems like this was purely (if it had been more successful) intended to try to provoke a nuclear response.
Isn’t there a more parsimonious explanation for ukraine’s behaviour? Something like: ‘Let’s do as much damage to russian military equipment as possible, because, we’re in a war, and that’s what you do’.
The russian supporters ever-renewed surprise and outrage at being attacked back never fails to entertain. Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives. Yesterday on twitter the hallucinated reason was to ‘torpedo the peace talks’, the peace talks that, until then, putin had shown zero interest in, and they duly decried as absurd.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3hr ago
Blackman at the Volokh Conspiracy: Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We're Really Busy Now, Come Back In A Year Or Two
A joy to see another grendel-khan California housing update. As an excuse to reply, I present another Noah Smith blog anti-anti-Abundance post. Located via Hanania dunk. At the end, Smith presents some polling results:
But a recent poll suggests that although there’s lots of interest in the abundance idea, the message is still less appealing than populist red meat. Although you might think a poll by some pressure group calling itself “Demand Progress” might be biased toward populist causes, I found the wording in the questions the wording in the questions to be reasonably fair
If we take Demand Progress at face value (probably shouldn't), then the results suggest the largest plurality of Dems make the policy as presented a net negative for electoral reasons. I don't think this justifies Hanania dunk farming but the second result via Smith's blog might. If lefty progressives can successfully frame a false dichotomy that presents Dems a choice between Abundance and the moral clarity of anti-corporate sentiment, then the winner should be clear. There's a whole lot of equity in anti-greed memes even among moderate Dems.
The worse stuff gets the less sensitive people are going to be to this kind of framing. Which already seems to be the growing reality. However, Republican coding the policies is not an empty threat to the movement. Which is why so much of the discourse online is focused on meta questions about the discourse. Popularity and electoral risk will determine how diluted the agenda gets before making it into policy and how much of the dysfunctional machine can be protected. An unthinkable, unlikely, but most entertaining outcome of this conflict would be Abundance Dems giving up on the party. Instead we're like to get the more likely, boring outcome of progressive pouting.
Snope v. Bonta has dropped like a gravestone:
The State of Maryland prohibits ownership of AR–15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §4–303(a)(2) (2025). This petition presents the question whether this ban is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit held that it is, reasoning that AR–15s are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F. 4th 438, 448 (2024) (en banc). I would grant certiorari to review this surprising conclusion.
That'd be a great opinion. It's not one.
Only Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have dissented from the denial of certiorari, which means that there is no Snope case now. This was final judgement (specifically, dismissal of the lawsuit), there are no other appeals, and there is no other chances. Maryland has banned a wide array of very common firearms, with vague definitions, the lower courts have held that these guns aren't even guns nevermind protected by the Second Amendment, and SCOTUS has punted. While Maryland's law here includes a grandfather registration clause, the circuit has already held that such clauses are unnecessary, none of the takings clause people cared, and SCOTUS punted. Binding law in the 4th Circuit holds that a firearm is not an arm.
It's also a case that has been rife with bad behavior from the lower courts; Thomas's dissent emphasizes the logical flaws, but I'll point out that under the name Bianchi this is the case that was held for over a year by a single judge on the appeals court who didn't file a dissent. There will be no percolation; 2A-favorable analysis of these laws will not be allowed to reach SCOTUS, and it will be smothered before en banc whenever possible.
Kavanaugh wrote an interesting ... concurrence? Dissental? Pile of bullshit? Statement. The record calls it a statement. This is particularly interesting because it only takes four to give certiorari; he literally could not write a dissent.
Given that millions of Americans own AR–15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR–15s are in “common use” by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller. See Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1286–1288 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). If so, then the Fourth Circuit would have erred by holding that Maryland’s ban on AR–15s complies with the Second Amendment.
Under this Court’s Second Amendment precedents, moreover, it can be analytically difficult to distinguish the AR–15s at issue here from the handguns at issue in Heller.
Again, would be a great opinion! It's not one, either. Instead:
Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals. [ed: list of cases moved] Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.
Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Roberts and Barrett, as typical for the majority in denials of cert, have no comment.
Kavanaugh gives a list of lower circuit cases that "should assist this Court's decision-making".
- Capen v. Campbell: The last decision was an appeals court holding "Appellants have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of either of their assault weapons- or LCM-related challenges." No preliminary injunction, basically zero percent chance of success at trial.
- National Assn. for Gun Rights v. Lamont: On preliminary injunction, "Plaintiffs have failed to show their likelihood of success on the merits, and so the Court need not reach the remaining preliminary injunction factors." Oral arguments were in October 2024; we don't have the final opinion (because fuck you, that's why).
- Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin: Hey, finally one with a progun trial decision, if only to the most limited extent (specifically only the Colt AR-15, and not an LCM ban that violated the takings clause) - and it's stayed on appeal. There's a separate issue that two terms won't be enough, given that this doesn't have oral args scheduled until the end of this month and the chance of en banc, but by the time we're asking whether New Jersey can ban Very Specifically Colt's Version Of The AR-15, we've already lost the plot.
- Viramontes v. County of Cook: "For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiffs’ "; aka the "AR15s are like M16s, right?" case. Oral arguments on appeal were November of 2024. Most likely to get a progun ruling (if only because Easterbrook apparently forgot to set his alarm that day), barring some weird procedural detour, but it's also in a bizarre procedural position because the Cook County ban in question was augmented, after the suit was filed, by a broader state-level ban... that SCOTUS also already punted on.
- Miller v. Bonta: hahahahaha, it's the Ninth Circuit, it has a snowball's chance in hell. Maybe we'll get another VanDyke youtube video? Haha, funny meme, yes? Except it's also been stayed since 2024, after original oral arguments, pending resolution of a case that dropped in March of this year, we don't have an opinion from it, and it's the fucking Ninth Circuit so there's literally no possibility of it escaping the en banc process with a progun result.
To be blunt: this SCOTUS will not be address the AR-15 issue in "the next Term or two". There will be no grand cases from the lower courts with a serious investigation of the Second Amendment ramifications that split the baby some perfect way. There will always be some excuse why a specific case wasn't the ideal vehicle, or why some new one that's just reached oral args is the better vehicle later, or why some specific law wasn't the best demonstration. Optimistically, Kavanaugh got a promise from John "Article III is <Not> Worth A Dollar" Roberts and will find out how much that promise is worth; pessimistically, Kavanaugh's a politician wearing robes and this is what he says to get readers (especially the sort that might make unscheduled visits to his house) to believe what he wants them to believe. Eventually, Thomas and Alito will retire, and either we're going to get much worse judges from a technical side who can actually make a fucking decision that matters when it shocks the conscience of the Amtrak world, even if that means they'll also bark on command when Trump asks, or a Dem president will get those seats, and either way, the conservative legal movement and anything deeper than a pretext of originalism will go the way of the dinosaur.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs here get nothing. They will be out years of their lives trying to bring this case, and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and attorney's costs. They will either have moved from Maryland, or gotten rid of any 'assault weapon' that they once owned, or never been allowed to buy one. A decision in a term or two will not protect Ocean State Tactical, another (pre-final-judgment) case SCOTUS denied cert on today, from being just as completely fucked over. Even should SCOTUS find their balls or be delivered new ones and eventually issue a pro-gun ruling, most circuits have standing orders that only recognize the most complete and on-point decision from SCOTUS as overruling circuit precedent, and the one exception is the 9th Circuit (and with a "when we like it" rule). SCOTUS has happily demonstrated, for the better part of a decade, that they will not smack wrists over that. Anti-gun lower courts will take this as an affirmance in the meantime.
It's not even as though guns are the only matter here: SCOTUS has similarly punted on the question of But It's Mean on Free Speech. Hell, guns aren't even the only thing in the guns cases. The court has similarly punted on the question of whether But It's Guns on Due Process, or But It's Guns on Free Speech [see also], or But It's Guns on Court Settlements, or even But It's Guns on the very caselaw that SCOTUS thought so beyond the pale that they'd managed to scrounge up a 9-0 before.
And, of course, there's the blaring siren in the room. As Thomas points out, SCOTUS has punted on this very specific legal question for over a decade post-Heller, while claiming a right delayed is a right denied. SCOTUS has a case covering the type of gun Heller was trying to bring in Heller I, it's listed for conference for Thursday, it's been over a decade, and they're gonna deny it, 99.9999%. And where I'd once point out that it's been longer since Heller than it was from Lawrence v. Texas to Obergefell, and Dick Heller still can't register (lol) the actual gun from his original case, I'm instead going to something a little more specific and recent. SCOTUS defied all its normal rules about procedural posture to protect the rights of an illegal immigrant in six hours on a holiday weekend. That's what SCOTUS cares about, and for every single court case they punt on in my lifetime -- whether challenges to a law like this, or people sitting in prison like Dexter Taylor -- this the standard they've set, and then forgot as soon as a normal citizen who hasn't beaten their wife got involved. Every single second longer than six hours, for cases that have 'percolated' for years.
Some peoples rights need be resolved right away, and others can wait and wait and wait.
AvocadoPanic
3hr ago
The title was a bit of a giveaway.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
3hr ago
I have not but after taking a fantasy break, I’m ready to jump back in the large and now massively back logged ocean.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
3hr ago
I’m be read The Malazan Book of the Fallen 3x now and am just waiting it out a few more years until my next read through. I’ll include his other books set in the universe next time as well. It’s my favorite series, and really my favorite piece of entertainment.
I started with Stephen King at 10/11 or so but didn’t read the Gunslinger saga until my late 20’s and still haven’t read the last 50 or so pages. I stopped one day and wanted to savor the ending … and then just never went back? I love all of the standard King novels but especially Insomnia.
Then quickly moved on the Sword of Truth and then Wheel of Time. I’ve read both twice. For WoT I didn’t read the ending written by Sanderson yet, and for SoT I stopped reading after book ten I think. I want to re-read both again but I think maybe I’ll let it lay until retirement. They both have many slug filled … hundreds of pages at a time.
All of The Black Company books. I would rank these second to Malazan for me. They’re Malazan light even I would say. I love how fast and readable they are and love all of the various crews and hijinks they get up to.
Tad Williams has two fanatic trilogies in Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn books that’s more fantasy typical and Otherland which is more sci fi and is 4 books. I’ve never read this one again but it’s stuck with me for going on 25 years now.
The Black Jewels Trilogy really had an impact on my sexual thoughts as a youngster, for better or worse.
That’s off the top of my head. There’s like 12-15 trilogies I’ve read and can’t recall tbh. I’ll have to walk through a 90’s B&N and rekindle my thoughts.
sun_the_second
3hr ago
The NOTSEE acronym is kind of obvious, so I suspected it was cribbed even though I've never studied the original.
TitaniumButterfly
3hr ago
And God help you if you crossed state lines!
To get those numbers, I assume housing supply is rising, but is still artificially held back in order to keep it as a viable-but-not-good investment?
That sounds a little crazy to me. If you could fix the problem faster, surely you should.
More options
Context Copy link