domain:cspicenter.com
Strongly agreed. Blindsight is in my top 3 list, and Lovecraft? The man was afraid of miscegenation, his own shadow, and presumably, General Relativity, given how much he hates non-euclidean geometry.
I found the general concept of unknowable, eldritch entities interesting, but his execution lackluster. The Laundry Files does it way better, if we're sticking to the Mythos.
Did I strawman the Right?
Yup.
Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:
Unless Lore Chavez-DeRemer has put on an unprecedented amount of weight in the last 48 hours, no one should confuse her for the mass of tens of millions of people that could be considered 'the Right.' The volume of space alone would be magnitudes off.
As such, attempting to use her as a proxy of tens of millions of people is a strawman, absent compelling evidence the views of those tens of millions are accurately represented by her.
Plenty of people support thé lower orders not being allowed to quit their jobs without special circumstances. Probationers and parolees are under this condition, for example.
ICE agents are very disproportionately Hispanic. This was probably a whites on Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites ambush.
There are people meant to live their lives doing grunt work without much say in the matter. Every society will find some way of making this happen- in ours it’s generally carceral, but other societies have held them(as well as lots of random people) as slaves.
I would like to first say I appreciate your contestation / elaboration. It was certainly a quip to move that can be contested on 'well, actually...' grounds. Kudos!
That's why I am only going to clarify my intent / dispute against two sub-elements.
They're cheap, good, and half the world's nations actively use them to wage war in some capacity. If that is not a good rifle I'm not sure what is.
The rifle the AR-15 is based on is better in part for the functions that differ it from the commercial AR-15. Which is to say- deliberate design access to to limited automatic as appropriate, as opposed to reliability-decreasing ad-hoc modification access to quasi-auto. Plus the additional attachments not used here, but that's getting into broader kitting options rather than potential.
The AR-15s the anti-ICE attackers used were modified AR-15s, nominally for that additional ability, but which may have compromised their reliability. Reliability (at least when maintained) being a key point of why half the world's nations actively use the M-16 and derivatives.
But that's not what I said in what you're responding to, so fair rejoinder.
But when we're actually fighting- we're shooting at targets that are actively trying to avoid being shot at, and trying not to be shot ourselves- and not just trying to score bullseyes on a static range, we want it to be as easy as possible for us to make hits.
My view is that this context, the Praireland Texas attack, is closer to the shooting range context than the 'actually fighting' context. And this probably the context anti-ICE facility attacks will have for any sort of anti-ICE insurgency.
Consider the attack at The ICE attack was done at range of 100-300 meters (or more), from cover / concealment, over a relatively brief amount of time. We know this by the criminal complaint report tying the shooters to nearby woods/treelines (100m and 300m away), and only 30-ish rounds being reported despite more-than-semiautomatic weapon fire rates. The only injury was implicitly in the initial salvo, before the defenders fell behind cover, and this salvo was the surprise/opening attack in terms of introducing gunfire. At which point, the officers at the scene were suppressed until the attackers withdrew, supported by the shooters in the forest, one of whom had enough concealment to remain hidden beyond the initial search response.
This is something that should be expected as a norm for anti-ICE attacks, in part due to the sort of government building design the Americans adopted after 9-11. The American federal government has been incorporating stand-off distance in new / security / detention facilities basically ubiquitous since 9-11, and in many contexts even before. Part of this is terrorism fears of truck bombs, part of this is security fears to prevent infiltration / unauthorized access, and part of it is wildfire management.
When- as is the government's preference- it has more freedom for standoff space, this creates longer sight lines, and thus requires longer weapons range which makes the post-opening cover movements more effective, and hasty counter-fire less effective. And when- as a matter of legacy- thick vegetation is far closer, so is the concealment advantage to the shooters from within the woods, who have to set up their own sight lines through the vegetation.
I recognize you and I may have different opinions, but I'd consider either of these dynamics more akin to (semi-)static rifle ranges than the close-in maneuver / counter-maneuver that I suspect you mean by 'actual combat.'
But this, too, is not exactly what I said in what you're responding to, so still a fair rejoinder.
I mean those are just completely different things.
In theory (if not usually in practice) one could have the right to free speech and free exercise of religion but not the right to freely move, choose one's own work, or make other contracts on one's own behalf.
Sounds like the last time a John Brown Gun Club member attacked an ICE facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Tacoma_immigration_detention_center_attack
To support this possibility: the FBI has done much worse. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/what-did-fbi-really-know-terrorist-attack-garland-texas
An FBI agent tagged along to document the mass shooting. Following in a different car and taking photos. Only because the mass-shooting-victims-to-be were armed and shot back was there not a slaughter.
but it never comes up again and has no impact on anything.
Isn't the whole point of the novel that
I'd say that's pretty plot relevant.
In fact, from a realism perspective, it is entirely believable that we might discover clear evidence that the universe is a sim, while simultaneously not being able to do anything about it. I assume the people with the capability to simulate an entire universe would have better sandboxing and intrusion hardening than AWS.
There's a reason why the blurb/introduction has the following quote:
Whenever I feel my will to read becoming too strong, I read Watts
(Great book. Up there as an all-time fave.)
how the Trump administration is increasing apprenticeships. Of course, few illegals do those high-skilled jobs,
Apprentices mostly are doing low-skill construction work that illegals also do until they’ve learnt enough to be useful helping a full tradesman. Trades jobs do require some training and when the norm is that that training is paid then they’re going to be trained by doing useful but low-skill work. Apprentice plumbers do some digging.
There are late 19th century American military studies recommending intermediate cartridges. They even plainly spell out that higher velocity 6.x mm rounds would be deadlier at all ranges than much heavier slower rounds.
And yet it took almost a century for it to be realized.
The McVeigh story as understood in the popular consciousness is incomplete at best and outright wrong at worst. I'd recommend anyone wanting to learn more to read Aberration in The Heartland of the Real.
Problem is, yes I would lose weight if you locked me in a camp and beat me with sticks. But to keep the weight off, you'd have to keep me locked up for life, or give me my own personal 'beat me with sticks and knock the food out of my hands' 24/7 person.
Changing habits is hard and willpower won't let me power my way to the new regime. I managed to willpower my way to stop biting my nails after years and years of that, but I can't willpower 'just stop fucking eating, you fat bitch'.
If the chatbot doesn't quite have your 30 years of memories, but can make an impression that would fool anyone else, what's the difference?
It's just that I feel like your arguments prove too much, as the expression goes. If there can be such a thing as "not enough data", then indeed how can you place a cutoff point? There's never all data. You of today don't have all the data on the you of yesterday.
The WSJ reports:
Preliminary findings indicate that switches controlling fuel flow to the jet’s two engines were turned off, leading to an apparent loss of thrust shortly after takeoff, the people said. Pilots use the switches to start the jet’s engines, shut them down, or reset them in certain emergencies.
The switches would normally be on during flight, and it is unclear how or why they were turned off, these people said. The people also said it was unclear whether the move was accidental or intentional, or whether there was an attempt to turn them back on.
This is preliminary and unofficial, so this isn't necessarily the real cause; no small part of the Boeing MAX scandal was because original 'leaks' heavily emphasized pilot error over the technical faults.
But if true, this is staggering. NA255 and other takeoff misconfiguration disasters have happened, and typically reflect a long series of systemic failures in addition to pilot misconduct, but each individual step is recognizable and understandable until it was too late. By contrast, the aircraft here could not have taxi'd, or run up, or gotten down the runway with fuel cut off to both engines; they're designed so that neither one could be hit accidentally. There is no failure that would cause pilots to turn them off mid-takeoff, and not even some bizarre reason to want to try.
Which... does not leave a lot of options, and they're all bad.
EDIT: official preliminary report here:
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off...
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.
I don't think there's any plausible solely-electrical or mechanical explanation that would explain these recordings.
a very young child would benefit from being around its family, versus being one of 10 or 20 kids overseen by essentially a cut-rate nurse, I’d think.
Over here, there are government regulations about staff-to-children ratios, and you would need more than one staff member to supervise 10-20 kids, depending on age (unless this was a really cut-rate, under the counter, unlicensed operation):
Sessional pre-school service A pre-school service offering a planned programme to pre-school (Montessori) children for a total of not more than 3.5 hours per session. This services category covers may include pre-schools, playgroups, crèches, Montesorri pre-schools, naíonraí or similar services which generally cater for pre-school children.
Adult to Child ratio
0-1 year 1:3
1 — 2.5 years 1:5
2.5— 6 years 1:11
Part-Time Day Care service A pre-school service offering a care service for children for a total of not more than 3.5 hours and less than 5 hours per day. This may include a sessional pre-school service for a child not attending the full day care service but instead a half day service. The service must provide the same physical environment, including rest, play and facilities, as for full day care. This service category may include pre-schools, playgroups, crèches, Montesorri pre-schools, naíonraí or similar services which cater for pre-school children.
Adult to Child ratio
0-1 year 1:3
1-2 years 1:5
2-3 years 1:6
3-6 years 1:8
(While within a sessional class - 2.5— 6 years 1:11)
Full Day Care service A pre-school service offers a structured day care service for pre-school children for more than 5 hours per day. This may include a sessional pre-school service for children as part of that day. This category includes day nurseries and crèches.
Adult to Child ratio
0-1 year 1:3
1-2 years 1:5
2-3 years 1:6
3-6 years 1:8
(While within a sessional class - 2.5— 6 years 1:11)
So why are Indian tourists, from a country where pickpockets are routinely beaten, not beating these pickpockets on the metro, where they are surrounded by other Indians, who (presumably) routinely beat pickpockets? Why is this dog not barking?
I never claimed that. I presume that they do, in fact, raise hell should they catch the culprit in the act. Unfortunately for tourists, they tend to be found in crowded places, some of which might be called tourist traps, where it's harder to notice, or figure out who the culprit was, while the latter has an easier time vanishing into the crowd.
To be clear, I'm not talking about online Indians, I'm talking about actual Indians I've met IRL, with who I've talked about life in India
Did you specifically ask them about the topic? It rarely comes up unprompted.
When Ashwin was arrested by the police in New Friends Colony, the seeds of doubt were sown in his mind.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not it was a victim who caught him, whether he was roughed up during the process, or after by the police. I've never claimed that standard means of law enforcement don't exist in India.
"mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts..."
Do you think DeRemer sees MAGA voters as a mass of white unemployed drug addicts?
You do seem to nail it on the sewing bras etc...
I had an Indian coworker once comment that shoplifters in India would be beaten. Rather unlike the American response of letting them do it.
Recently @RandomRanger accused me of strawmanning the Right:
Turok was being banned for being overtly aggressive and obnoxiously creating imaginary narratives like "The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain."
That's not what the 'woke right' thinks and he surely knows it. He need only check the MAGA rhetoric from Trump about good factory jobs, or the rhetoric from the right about the need to mechanize dull fruitpicking jobs and raise productivity. Why, they say, should millions of people be brought into the country if AI is going to destroy everyone's jobs? Or the need to have American wealth kept in America rather than sent off in remittances. Or them hating H1Bs as cost-cutting that interferes with developing talent. Or them not seeing the country as purely an economic zone but having responsibility to native citizens. It's an insanely uncharitable and aggressive butchering of other people's ideology.
Did I strawman the Right? Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:
FOX: I think American citizens are willing to do the jobs that illegal immigrants are willing to do.
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER: Americans are willing to do the job. What we have to give them is the opportunity to have those jobs.
DeRemer refers to "Americans," the online racialist Right is talks about whites, but in both cases the vision is the same, uplifting the ingroup means getting them the opportunity to do the jobs currently done by the guy standing in the Home Depot parking lot. Is there any wonder high-income whites are moving away from the Republican Party? Working-class whites, too, don't want their sons working casual labor, which is why in the video DeRemer goes on to talk about how Americans will be given opportunity through being "skilled, upskilled, re-skilled" and how the Trump administration is increasing apprenticeships. Of course, few illegals do those high-skilled jobs, so upskilling Americans won't replace many illegals, but it's not like the Fox News host is going to point out the apparent contradiction.
Given that I've given an example from a cabinet-level Trump administration official, (not "nutpicked" from some rando on Twitter) I expect that @RandomRanger will withdraw his claim that I "obnoxiously created imaginary narratives" in the interests of truth and courtesy.
In the wider internet, I think I'm quite unusual in being open-minded about the benefits of such extrajudicial punishment, compared to the kind of Indians you would pay attention to online.
To be clear, I'm not talking about online Indians, I'm talking about actual Indians I've met IRL, with who I've talked about life in India.
India is a poor country! Western tourists are probably not taking public transport except for the sake of it. That is not nearly as true for Indian tourists, in India.
So why are Indian tourists, from a country where pickpockets are routinely beaten, not beating these pickpockets on the metro, where they are surrounded by other Indians, who (presumably) routinely beat pickpockets? Why is this dog not barking?
Further, there's obvious selection-bias at play: Vice didn't choose to interview an ex pickpocket, did they?
They did, he's no longer a pickpocket.
So, in this sentence, what is the "problem" that is in need of a solution? Is it, like, "the problem of trying to decide what to tell people"? Or what?
I'm confused as to what your claim was. I found a banned comment of yours stating that
It seems like @RandomRanger quoted it accurately enough, but source quote you provide in this comment is only very weak Bayesian evidence for this claim.
In fact, the quote you provide is much more consistent with the claim that "Republicans see class instead of race, and migrants fleeing opens up jobs traditionally taken by lower/working class citizens." No need for extra drug epicycles at all.
I may add here that the above classic Republican claim is consistent with where migrants work, but unemployment in those sectors is going up faster than elsewhere, so clearly the story is more complex.
More options
Context Copy link