domain:alexepstein.substack.com
ChickenOverlord
4m ago
At least William Adams has a decent amount of actual historical documents about him (and written by him!). Yasuke has about 6 lines total, that say he was gifted by the Portuguese to Oda Nobunaga, and then returned to them after Oda Nobunaga's assassination.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
14m ago
I don't think that's a preference cascade.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
17m ago
Not engaging and being critical is a default victory for the minoritarian/woke supporters. Does this means you are obligated to take part in the culture wars? Well, kind of. Like it or not, those who show up are those who win.
Depends on what you mean by "show up", and what you're expecting to get out of it.
There was no conceivable act of individual heroism that could have shattered the power of the Catholic church at the height of the Inquisition, or hastened the fall of Soviet communism during the reign of Stalin. There was no "war", just those with power enforcing their will on their powerless, with very few meaningful avenues for rebuttal. Only through the accumulated weathering of decades (or centuries) did a change of conditions eventually become possible.
I certainly think it's virtuous to not be afraid of the censors. Do what you want to do, and don't let them stop you. But don't have delusions of grandeur either. If the only reason you're waging the culture "war" is because you think you can change the course of world history, then you should consider if there are better ways you could be spending your time.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
17m ago
When it comes to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the first two seem to take top billing. Diversity is brought up regularly in the context of affirmative action and quotas, with hot debates about whether diversity is our strength, potentially a neutral value, or even a liability. Equity is discussed in fiscal policy, with questions raised about the relative virtues of desserts, redistribution, and fairness. I rarely hear people talk about inclusion though and even among DEI skeptics, I rarely hear it raised as a point of contention. I get the feeling that this is because saying you're against inclusion sounds just plain mean. Nonetheless, I want to broach that a little bit, at the risk of being mean, since I think rejecting inclusion as a terminal value is necessary for achieving the results I actually seek.
The examples that keep popping up as the most intense culture-war fodder involve trans inclusivity. The most aggressive form of this putative inclusion is including trans-identified males in women's sports, but it's also showing up in places that I would have expected even less. In Wisconsin, we have a group called the Women's Medical Fund that has had the primary mission of funding abortions for the indigent and under resourced. While I am well aware that abortion itself is hotly debated, I am personally happy to grant that the people that are carrying out this mission are intending to provide a service that they think women should have available to them. This is, unfortunately, not an inclusive mission because of the emphasis on women. With a new director, they now have a home page statement:
The organizational leadership of WMF Wisconsin shares a commitment to gender inclusion, and we seek to hold ourselves accountable to supporting abortion access for people of all genders. We are in the process of changing our name to reflect that. As of this year, we have been trying to use only the acronyms “WMF” or “WMF Wisconsin” in our written communications, until we have a chance to do a full re-name and re-brand. However, we recognize this is not reflected everywhere in our website and other materials. We also know that it’s not just about changing gendered language; we need to continue to learn and grow our gender justice practice.
When this was brought up on a local subreddit, the comments emphasize that this was about inclusion and making sure trans men are including as well. While the private organization can do what they want here and it's no surprise to see such an organization embrace the farthest left gender politics of its day, I can't help but see such "inclusion" as actually being rather alienating to women, or at least as a complete waste of time for an organization that surely has bigger problems to deal with at the moment.
This doesn't actually get to the heart of why I think the persistent emphasis on inclusion can be poisonous though. As I have mentioned approximately 37 million times here, I really enjoy running - the physical activity, the competition, the camaraderie of groups, everything about the sport has been great for my life. Many runners pride themselves on being inclusive in the sport, welcoming everyone in, and meeting them where they're at. I agree that this is good! Everyone's got to start somewhere and I want people to feel welcome and to enjoy the sport whether they're talented or experienced or not. Nonetheless, there are aspects of the sport that are exclusive and taking an inclusion-maxing philosophy would be damaging. On a small scale, my club has one night a week that is intended for a faster group; not a hard speed workout or anything, but a fast enough pace (typically 7-8 minutes/mile for about 5-6 miles) that it excludes quite a few people. That filter is still pretty broad, but it does tend to cut down to people that are generally more serious about the sport. This isn't inclusive and that's a good thing.
On a broader scale in the sport, some races have qualifying times to enter. Most famously, most Boston Marathon entries are granted based on qualifying times and the cutoff marks for it are often thought of as capstones for being a solid amateur runner (young men need to run a marathon below 3:00 to qualify, meaning a 6:52/mile pace). I've always been dimly aware that some people don't like that setup, but became more acutely aware of it when the Boston-area running apparel company Tracksmith released a running jersey that was exclusively for Boston qualifying athletes and pissed a bunch of people off:
Diverse We Run, a popular Instagram account that promotes racial representation in the running world, responded to Tracksmith’s apology, writing, “No one is saying we shouldn’t celebrate achievements or have standards. No one is saying a race can’t have qualifying times. The problem is when a brand (or race event, or governing body … etc) claims to be a ‘champion for the AMATEUR RUNNER‘ (ie, ‘for everyone’) in theory, but actually still reinforces exclusion and elitism in practice.”
Some argued that the outrage wasn’t just about the singlet, but larger issues they see with the brand, like its limited sizing options (women’s sizing caps out at a 32-inch waist XL, or size 12 dress equivalent), or its decision to feature predominantly thin bodies in marketing, among other critiques.
...
The running community’s response brings up questions about whether it’s possible to be inclusive in substantive ways and yet still reserve some things as sacred and vaunted, only earned through fast performances.
Can you have it both ways?
Well, I have my answer. Yes, I want to include everyone in the sport. No, I don't want everything to be for everyone. There's nothing wrong with saying, "this is for fast guys", regardless of where you put that cutoff. People rightfully derive pride from putting in the time and work to develop themselves at the sport and it's good that they are able to have symbols, groups, and events that are exclusive.
This gets to my core objection with inclusion as an important value in and of itself, and it's the desire to include everyone in everything flattens people and groups out into boring sameness. It's not possible to distinguish by merits, preference, difference, or interests if the top goal is to provide an inclusive environment to everyone in every place. If I embrace inclusivity as a top priority, I lose the ability to select for people that actually demonstrate their interests, merits, and loyalty. The implications of this broaden out at every level - if anyone can be American, it means nothing to be American.
So, the next time you're thinking that you're not a fan of DEI, don't stop with noticing that diversity is a liability, and that equity is about taking your home equity, remember that the progressive conception of inclusion sucks too.
FaibleEstimeDeSoi
19m ago
Russian Smeshariki(that were for some reason renamed kikoriki in English release) are mainly story focused in the main series, but I think at least a third of russian-speaking zoomers know what mortgage, string theory or DNA is from one of the spin-offs.
Folamh3
23m ago
Like that George Carlin bit, that if Jesus was born 40 years ago in the US, Christians would be wearing tiny electric chairs around their necks.
faceh
25m ago
A fun game would be to get the woke upset that Ubisoft thinks so little of black civilization that they insert black characters into other civs instead of doing a game based on black history.
The slightly humorous explanation for that is it would entail a black character running around incessantly killing other exclusively black characters.
Maybe they could get away with setting it during the "Scramble for Africa" colonialism period. But they'd have to pull some explanation out of their butt for why Africa was so fundamentally undeveloped BEFORE the Europeans arrived, i.e. why did the magical illuminati people ignore it until then?
From your original post:
Low male employment, antiwork, and the rise of NEET-dom
I am not @SomethingMusic
CertainlyWorse
Dedicated Pessimist
35m ago
Thank you. I think I need to go and read the book.
faceh
38m ago
Yes, lack of accountability does end up gelling with my other theory on institutional failure
As I hinted at above, I would hope that the end of an era of low interest rates enabling all kinds of corporate shenanigans would meant that financial performance again becomes the dominant metric by which decisions to fire are made.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
44m ago
Unironically, it seems to me that Mansa Musa would fit well with the other "power and political intrigue" settings in the AC series, although I've only played a couple of the early titles.
cjet79
47m ago
Its one of those stories where the flaws don't bother me too much or they are actually kind of a positive.
I'd consider Runesmith kinda mediocre, but its also held my attention much longer than other stories.
I think the author is very good at creating interesting worlds/settings, decent at desperate and action packed combat scenes, and good at a steady sense of progression for the main character.
The grammar and word choice and editing leave a great deal to be desired. I think the author uses voice to text, because there are sometimes words that sort of sound correct if you are speaking out loud, but are totally the wrong word choice. If you are an editing stickler this story is a hard pass. I am mostly not a stickler for tight editing. As long as I can mostly understand it then I'm fine. Though repeated bad explanations like in translated novels will wear me down into frustration eventually.
The dialogue and social scenes sometimes annoy me. The author likes to create "anime scenes". Where the main character and side characters are doing silly and embarrassing things. The side characters are filled with beautiful women. Its not Harem, but it falls into a side genre that I'm gonna call "Harem Eyes". The MC isn't sleeping with a bunch of people, but the author is definitely undressing all of them with his writing. There are lots of beautiful big breasted women around. Its almost like being set in a harem setting, without the actual harem showing up.
The main character is also mostly rational in their long term approach to problems. They will sometimes make emotional hero-like decisions in the moment. Generally I am not getting frustrated with the main character for being an idiot to drive the plot forward.
Without the MC holding an idiot ball the author seems to have some trouble advancing the plot sometimes. So instead the MC just seems fantastically unlucky. Also because the author often describes mundane events and interesting events with the same amount of leading details you never really know when a bout of bad luck is about to strike the MC. I kinda like that surprise.
5434a
54m ago
It's difficult to judge as a TV show because I know the book and so I knew the plot and the characters going in and could tell what parts they took out, what parts they altered, what parts they cut down and so on. Over all it was fine, no complaints*, but the book is necessarily a much richer experience and if I ever want to revisit the story I'd re-read the book rather than rewatch the show.
* One complaint: Lady Ochiba's anime villainess dialogue delivery.
jeroboam
54m ago
I have the following well-worn preference cascade
-
My rules. In this case, race blindness.
-
Your rules, enforced fairly. In this case, all races are treated as protected classes.
-
Your rules, enforced unfairly. In this case, white people are uniquely disrespected. Black people, uniquely sanctified. <--- we are here
I prefer 1, then 2, then 3.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
54m ago
Gamblers allegedly think that the chance of a third-party victory is a whopping 2.5 percent. Note, however, that this single number is an aggregation of multiple betting services, whose underlying numbers (available by tapping on or hovering over the Dem. and Rep. party symbols) seem to be all over the place.
Even if we grant them that they have discovered a new thing which can carry momentum, I am kind of puzzled about the implications for conservation of energy.
Friction and air resistance aside, the most effective method to convert energy into momentum of your vehicle is a railway (or car). The other mass involved in the conservation of momentum is Earth, which is much heavier than your train, so almost all of the energy you invest ends up as kinetic energy in your train. We know from high school physics that the energy you have to invest to reach velocity v is E=m/2vv.
Rockets are a lot less energy efficient than that. Because their momentum-balancing mass is much smaller, they end up with most of the energy being carried by the exhaust. Tyranny of the rocket equation and all that.
Photon drives powered by onboard reactors may or may not fall under some weird relativistic version of the rocket equation (after all, your reactor will become slightly lighter as it provides energy), but are in any case laughably inefficient.
A drive which provides a useful constant, rate of acceleration while using a constant amount of power would be better than the train, eventually, thereby violating conservation of energy.
Another way to think about it: If you are using undiscovered massive particles (perhaps dark matter) to dump your momentum into, the rest system of these particles will define an unique frame of reference. If you are in the rest system, you can accelerate very efficiently with your magical drive: just suck in particles and expel them with a tiny velocity (say 1m/s) to carry your momentum. If you do that for a while and now move through the particles with 10 km/s, you will notice that your job becomes much harder: to carry the same momentum, you will have to accelerate the incoming particles, which you see at 10km/s, to 10.001 km/s. This costs a lot more energy than accelerating them from 0m/s to 1m/s. (You will also see more particles per time, but this will not save you, fundamentally, the amount of energy you require to dump a marginal amount of momentum (dE/dp) will become very unfavorable.)
This of course suggests another test for the emDrive: Michelson-Morley experiment, dark matter edition. Measure the thrust per energy (probably in z direction, so don't pick the poles?) at different times of the day and the year, so that the relative velocity of the particles in the direction of the thrust is different. If you get fluctuations consistent with Earth moving through some particle field, this should be enough for at least one Nobel.
More options
Context Copy link