culture war roundup
“We typically have the same group of offenders every week that are recognizable by face and by name, just loitering and hanging out,” he said. “A small percentage of people are ruining it for the rest of the community that deserves to go to their grocery store and their library.”
Computer, add "loiterers" to the list.
In countries like the States, seethe ensues when corporations move their stores out of crime-ridden areas. Seethe ensues when corporations stay in crime-ridden areas but put their merchandise behind protective casings. Seethe ensues when mom-and-pop stores put up bars or barriers in front of their merchandise or themselves (that's what's most Problematic about black-on-Asian crime: Asians daring to protect themselves in their stores and make blacks feel unwelcome).
Just tell us what store-owners are supposed to do. I guess, by process of elimination, keeping your store in place and enjoying the vibrancy with a smile on your face is what store-owners are supposed to do.
In that respect, state-sponsored grocery and other stores make sense. When corporations and Problematic individuals fail to be Empathetic and Decent Beings, the state would need to step-in and use net-taxpayer funds to be on the Right Side of History.
And then when the usual outcomes remain, one can bounce back and forth between the epicycles of Social Constructs, Socioeconomic Factors, Food Deserts, Food Security, Nutritional Security, Micronutritional Equity, Microbiome Equity, Factors from Other Ways of Knowing.
The state-sponsored grocery stores not delivering the promised outcomes would just mean the racists and stingy net-pax-payers prevented such outcomes from happening with their bigotry, and more tax-payer money and Inclusion would need to be devoted to the matter to pwn the racists and eat the rich in the name of Equity.
ControlsFreak
14hr ago
This was a really fun paper to read, especially since I just noted that I'm going through an MIT OCW nuclear course right now. My actual knowledge on the topic still rounds to approximately zero, but it was actually enjoyable to just go through the proposed reactions/decays, just pull up the same tables they're using, do the incredibly simple energetics calculations, and see that they are, indeed, correct. I would have had no clue how to do even that just a few months ago.
So, can confirm that the stone simple energetics work; they're not so far out to lunch that they've made such a stupidly basic error (we're not dealing with total cranks). I can't say much of anything on any of the many many other questions involved concerning reactor/process design, materials handling, economics of it, etc. They do point out some prior works that had looked into this in the past, so it's also not unprecedented, but the current authors get an order of magnitude more production in their calculations. The current authors, correctly in my view, point out that the prior works (in the 80s) didn't really show their work for how they got their estimate for gold production, as they were focused on cobalt (and the current authors write reasonably significantly on mercury enrichment, which prior works didn't, and I don't have the knowledge to evaluate). There may be (and probably is?) some other technical barrier to the rest of the scheme that an experienced nuclear engineer would spot in an instant, but if not...
What a time to be alive!
muzzle-cleaned-porg-42
14hr ago
Second: @WhiningCoil earned a number of reports on that post. He gets reported a lot as he descends further into his bitter nihilistic hole. He's been temp-banned many times under his various alts since he first started blackpilling hard on reddit, so it's not like his seething rants about how much he hates (an ever-expanding range of people) have gone without consequences. That post (and several others of his) are in fact still sitting in the mod queue because I decided I was not going to be the one to make a decision about them.
I can see two ways of looking at this mod reply. Slightly uncharitable take: Mod leaves WhiningCoils reported message to mod queue, but has the time and join in the reply pile-on to a rage-quit message with a 3k character lecture about principles of the Motte. More charitable take, WhiningCoil's comment got both pushback from the commentariat and mod attention, so the mods feel need to point out the rage-quitter's complaints were not justified.
Speaking of the principles of the Motte ... the stated principle is "to be a place where people can say the things they can't say elsewhere, and then have to defend it". Very eloquent, but many people and groups have lofty-sounding idealistic principles that fail to produce intended results. Is the Motte a place where people come to say the things they can't say elsewhere and have to defend it? How often? Do the rules help or hinder such interactions?
Looking at the previous CW thread, I think the Epstein discussions had most back-and-forth argumentation with most genuine effort to present evidence and argue. Quickly scanning, this OP, this discussion of shot-down airplanes in Serbian war and movie script discussion yielded some discussion with occasional real disagreement. So did Turok's top-level posts, which were perhaps not the best as arguments, but they produced adversarial disagreement. Not certain if any of the rest of top-level posts satisfy the same criteria. More often than not, it looks like people chiming in with not too dissimilar opinions, not a vigorous argumentation to dismantle or defend a controversial opinion.
I mean, as I said
I can nearly promise you, with that much state money being dumped into the project and with that little food on shelves, there is a "community organizer" driving around in a brand new BMW involved somewhere.
More options
Context Copy link