domain:worksinprogress.co
faceh
29d ago
Its a terrible shame that wearable exo-suit tech is so far behind the curve compared to quadcopters.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
29d ago
Like so —
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up… may the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus.
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Finally: all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing
Christians should have the easiest time doing this, because that’s the whole message of Christ. The gospel traces the start of a Brotherhood while the Epistles outline its governance. If no one can do it, it means they have to learn and revere Christ who did it, and then encourage each other in Christ, and then select the most Christlike to head the group, and so on. And that’s precisely what we see in the first Christian church. They are learning, encouraging, criticizing, expanding. You get the sense that the brotherhood was based exclusively in positive reinforcement and perhaps some “training”, and only reserving punishment for the very damaging things. If this is so, then status is mostly positive sum.
In the first Pagan letter about the “contagion” of Christianity, we see that some modest oaths were involved —
They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to do some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food — but ordinary and innocent food.
There would obviously be sin present at the table but sin already exists wherever friend groups and social networks congregate. Every college has a dozen fraternities nominally dedicated to some trite values but really dedicated to Bacchus, and people enjoy this greatly even though there’s drama and occasional fighting. If Christians can’t do a greater job of uniting men together when all the men revere Christ, then religion itself is a failed project. But this isn’t so. I think it would be quite feasible especially with good selection filters and rules in place.
I agree that, because nothing like this exists, it’s good to do the next best thing. But just from historical study + psychology, nothing going to be effective like this.
are you going to
I am going go continue reading and longing. Maybe one day a compelling substack post.
General poll of opinions here, since I don't see much conversation about it - either because of news bubbles or general disinterest in discussing the ugly side of authoritarianism.
Main query: Are the blackbagging tactics of ICE a necessary evil, a dangerous overstep, or some nuanced in-between?
Genuinely, I don't have a steelman for blackbagging tactics. Right now, ICE is targeting a certain type of "undesirable", namely, allegedly undocumented illegal immigrants, and appear to have carte blanche to apprehend anyone who disrupts that process. But the hallmark of authoritarianism is to expand the definition of "undesirable" to include your political opponents - and if blackbagging undesirables is already palatable, then you can blackbag your political opponents. It's a matter of convenience that political enemies are already attempting to disrupt the blackbagging of undocumented illegal immigrants - it makes that leap that much easier were it to happen. How convenient as well that there's now an entire organizational apparatus gaining valuable experience in how to make people disappear on US soil? They may look like mall cops who are dressed for the paintball arena for now, but if they happened to get any of that DoD money...
Blackbagging by ICE seems to be an extrajudicial process by design, as a flex of the unitary executive theory that the judiciary exists only to serve the will of the executive. The judiciary is viewed as uncooperative and painted as obstructive, despite being intentionally hamstrung by the right wing of congress that has refused for several presidential terms to pass any immigration reform despite bipartisan efforts. One doesn't have to look very hard at all to find red tribe voices foaming at the mouth to declare enemies of the state: official mouthpieces of the current administration, senators, congresspeople. History rhymes, and I know enough of the current admin has read Carl Schmitt to recognize the paths that are available to them at this point if they happen to be hungry for power.
Ending query: Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the end goal of this administration is to establish a type of authoritarianism where people are kidnapped and disappeared because of vocal opposition to the regime, what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that? History buffs, what are the best examples of countries barely recovering from the brink of authoritarianism?
Edit: I appreciate the responses, there was actually quite a bit of variety which was nice to read. I came away with a steelman (which I didn't have originally) which is that the theatrics of ICE is meant to intimidate illegal immigrants. In effect, it would seem like that would select for immigrants who are reckless and fearless (yikes), or immigrants who face such extreme danger in their home country that even Twitter videos of brown people being tackled by men in masks doesn't slow them down (these desperate people would probably be considered "authentic" refugees by most leftists, and not just "economic migrants").
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
29d ago
Thanks for sending me your thoughts!
I have no doubt we could raise a kid here, for a bit. It would be a huge pain, but you are right it's likely the timing would work alright between career progression and the space needs of the family. I mentioned this before, but there is something shitty about having to "downgrade" versus your childhood. Scary thought if there's some job losses and we get stuck here, the den doesn't even have a door.
Honestly, the timing thing you mentioned is a compelling point. I think that's been percolating in my head for a while, and one of the reasons I latched onto this topic. The narrative of "we can't do it yet" is starting to have some cracks in the foundation (is this what brain development feels like?).
This is kind of in the weeds, but the existence of tents in Toronto parks doesn't mean all of Toronto is worse off. The city is bigger and more full of interesting places all over. It just sucks not having a backyard, OR living in a fancier neighborhood. I have never seen tents in Ramsden park (in Forest Hill) for example, but downtown residents don't lean on their city councilors very much (or have the wealth/clout to make their lives suck).
To be honest I find the existence of Burlington and Oakville both mildly offensive to my sense of what makes for a good city (terrible for the environment, unsustainable financially, and deeply opposed to anything changing ever). I don't want my kid to be shackled to me until they're 16, and despite being an avid cyclist in Toronto, I would be very uncomfortable with my kid biking around the streets of Oakville with their friends (not because of crime/stranger danger, because of oblivious drivers and a complete lack of bike infrastructure or respect for cyclists). And they can't walk anywhere because everything is at car distance.
My friends and I were taking the streetcar to and from school in packs at age 11/12, it was great. We could bike (or walk) to each other's houses without riding on or near mega-roads with average speeds north of 60km/h.
Also living in Hamilton means I can at least live and work in downtown Hamilton and have a quick commute. In Oakville or Burlington I'm either taking the GO train into Toronto (awful, especially now that electrification got fucked) or I am driving to some random business park in perpetually worsening YoY traffic (proven to be shitty to your life satisfaction).
This has turned into a shameless downtown elitist rant. Thank you for your perspective. I think you are right, I have not been considering the play you get with timing in the first few year's of your child's life. They don't get born with a need for a full on room to themselves, that takes time.
Sunshine
29d ago
Is there another nation-building strategy that has been proven more effective? I only said it was the most effective strategy that has been tried so far. I didn't say it was neighborly.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
29d ago
I have tried all of them except the LSD, which Im not going to. Didnt do shit.
women no longer need men for physical or economic security [when careers and the state will provide]
I'm really liking the discussion here but I'm going to call this point out.
Its true on the face of it. Society is set up so no woman need be entirely reliant on any particular man.
But its really just because they can outsource the duties normally handled by a spouse to other specialized MEN in their community, as needed. Men can be hired on a gig basis.
If she's physically threatened, she calls the police. Who are mostly male.
If there's a natural disaster, fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, avalanche, etc. etc., the first responders/rescuers are largely male. DITTO for the guys rebuilding infrastructure in the aftermath, and who will be shipping emergency supplies in.
If she needs something at her abode fixed, her car repaired, heavy furniture moved... SAME THING. It'll be a man doing it.
And for economic security, well, the various programs that allow women to have shelters, welfare, food stamps, and other support, even if they're a unmarried, drug addicted, unemployed mother... are largely paid for on the back of taxes extracted from other men.
Its male labor all the way down. No, not every male, or maybe not even a majority, but the only reason women can even afford to express open spite towards male behavior is because men have built the prerequisite conditions for them to do so safely.
Its been shunted into the background somewhat, but oh boy do women still ABSOLUTELY NEED MEN to enjoy any standard of living and and ongoing safety from most physical dangers.
Men created and maintain the internet, too, and various apps, and that's now the preferred vector for women to complain about how useless and ugly men are. This is a supreme, SUPREME irony. Google "Chopped Man Epidemic" for a vantablackpill. Women who couldn't manage to set up a basic LAN are tearing into the exact type of men who make it possible for them to publish this stuff to the masses in the first place.
The current delusion (I will call it what it is) shared by many women that because they can work a job and provide for their own independent living means they don't need men at all is the symptom and somewhat the cause of the current gender discourse. And trying to point this out is very much taboo in polite society.
In short, I'm actually pondering whether we should organize any and all single men with decent-paying jobs into a unified income tax strike. Just refuse to pay taxes and see how society reacts to this simple act of peaceful rebellion. If men aren't needed, if women are capable of getting along without them, then things should putter along okay anyway.
wayfarer
29d ago
what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that
well, easy answer would be "stop sabotaging deportation of people who immigrated illegally" though for deeply open border people who consider nearly any deportation as unacceptable it is nonstarter
despite being intentionally hamstrung by the right wing of congress that has refused for several presidential terms to pass any immigration reform despite bipartisan efforts
how bipartisan they were? Is "bipartisan" used here in meaning "one republican voted for"? Or some deeper support?
and AFAIK left wing in turn sabotaged orderly deportations or blocking them at border (and yes, border walls can work if maintained properly)
History buffs, what are the best examples of countries barely recovering from the brink of authoritarianism?
South Korea just did it
netstack
Texas is freedom land
29d ago
That doesn’t seem right.
Missouri, Arkansas and Texas were colonized by Southerners and embraced slavery with both hands. California was also colonized by plenty of Southerners, at least if you count Missourians, but today is one of our least “culturally Southern” states.
When Kansas’s slavery was deferred to popular vote, political interests in the U.S. encouraged their supporters to go tip the scales. For abolitionists, this meant recruiting New Englanders, not disaffected Southerners. Proslavery interests, as usual, relied on Southerners, even those who didn’t hold their own slaves.
Outside of those states, the bulk of settlement occurred after slavery was abolished.
Hadad
29d ago
The following is a nakedly partisan take, but that's because you asked for a poll of opinions. These are my sincerely held beliefs; there's no room for anyone to argue me out of them, but I'm not expecting anyone to share it, either:
They're not a necessary evil, but rather an actively good thing. The legitimacy of our immigration system and sovereignty are at all-time lows; the left half of the political spectrum has so wholly abused it for so long in word and deed that there is simply no good faith left at all in my heart. There is no legitimate way to get the job done. The job itself is the enemy for all my political opponents, and they will never operate in good faith. Every single step in the way of removing the aliens will be opposed, lied about, defied in the courts, gummed up with riots, proclaimed the end of the republic, of humanity, of compassion.
Compromises will be offered. Negotiations presented as reasonable offramps to escalation. They are lies. Amnesty was a lie the first time. It's still a lie. There will never be any meaningful reform. There is no negotiation in existential conflict. There is only the will and the power to act.
All actions taken to remove the invaders are intrinsically moral and just. They are righteous. The more pain and terror inflicted in the process, the greater the psychic wound sustained on the collective consciousness of these illegals and all others interested in following them, the better. They are not my peers, they are not my countrymen, they are not my kin. They are an antagonistic force weaponized by a hostile elite to prop up their comfortably parasitic lives as they extract ever more demanding rents from every system they infest.
I want the blackbagging. I want the fascistcore club music as a squad of red-visored faceless commandos mow down the rioters waving Mexican flags. I have not one single remaining concern for the processes, the systems, or the rules. They've been nakedly abused my entire life. They're hollow. It's all raw power, and I want my team to wear the boot.
Does that have its own risks and consequences? Of course. But none of them are worse than blues wearing the boot, and illegals are one of their shoelaces.
What do ICE, the Black and Tans, and the Mongol Horde have in common? They're something you unleash on subjects who refuse to be governed by the gentle hand of civilian administration. If you play nice and pay tribute you get the diplomat or the local policeman. If you refuse you get soldiers instead. Are they a dangerous overstep? Yes, deliberately so. They're also unjust, rapacious, and cruel. They're intolerable in a civilized society. That's the point. They're supposed to be intolerable. Unable to tolerate them, the regime's enemies are then supposed to surrender.
When this force is unleashed, the offer is always the same: "I'll pull back my murderous thugs when you start treating my civilian administrators with respect appropriate to the power of my regime. You know the baton-carrying constable has no power over you, but I order you to behave like he holds your life in his hands. You know this arrogant nobleman claiming to speak for the Khan only has a few bodyguards at his disposal, but I order you to pretend he has the power to destroy you with a wave of his hand. If you refuse to accept my power when I rule with a light hand, I'll rule with an iron fist. If you refuse to obey my constable or pay tribute to my diplomat, I'll send in the troops to extract your loyalty by force."
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
29d ago
The technical issue of holding territory if you manage to capture it is still hard to solve.
I dont think either of them want to hold enemy territory. Iran maybe as a long-term goal, but theyre on the defensive here so its probably not in play. Israel is fine with distance-policing their capabilities.
Also for some reason it seems like most people picture a Chinese invasion of Taiwan like it’s Omaha beach in 1944 with Higgins boats full of Chinese soldiers getting mowed down on the beach, it wouldn’t be like that at all. It would be 2000 cruise missiles a day for three weeks before there was any kind of landing attempt.
The reasons why are threefold (or more).
First, if the Chinese used their cruise missile potential like that, they'd have blown through most of their stocks in those three weeks, with relatively few left for the landing. (They'd have some, but proportionally). The nature of a missile that you can launch from long range is that throughput is high (you can fire them faster), and the diminishing returns of bombardment over time is low (you get less value per cruise missile on week three than on week one, and on week one than on day one, because everything easily killable either dies or becomes less-killable with time). It doesn't really matter what the specific number is, the nature of the munition is that you can shoot your stockpile far faster than you can sustain it, and your incentives are to do so early when it's most effective. If you're going to wait three weeks regardless, you'd might as well just hold fire, so those munitions could paralyze the Taiwanese ground force when you do move.
Second, the opening weeks of that sort uber-overt conquest scenario is a race against time, with the time being the ability of the US navy from the rest of the world's oceans to relocate to the Pacific. This is measured in weeks. Add however long you expect you ground force to take onto that. In a sustained offensive, the Chinese want their bridgehead established and expanding before American carrier airpower can bring, lest the reinforced carriers start cutting the sea lanes supporting the attack. That doesn't mean a day-0 landing attempt, but it does mean there's an optimal point before the island is bombarded into dust, but more importantly before the US carrier airpower in the pacific quadruples, to land.
Third, there is a non-trivial chance that Xi or whomever gives the go-ahead convinces themselves that the Taiwanese would collapse / surrender promptly once landed, whether because they convince themselves there won't be any resistance, that the resistance they will face will be brittle and easily crushed, or that once a landing is made the authorities will surrender, especially if if they believe their agents will defect. This is the sort of belief that leads to judgements that prioritize speed and audacity over preparation. Remember- in the 'don't screw up like this' invasion of Ukraine, the Russians did make the vast majority of their gains in those opening days and weeks, even when the ran into a wall, and a lot of that was because there was a bunch of actually-worked preparartions of corrupted government types who were bought off in advance. If that sort of optimism seems unreasonable, consider what level of default optimism you'd need to approve a landing in the first place, and then consider the system and identify who will tell Xi the optimist 'no.'
It also helps to remember that Omaha Beach 1944 was... not actually that well fortified, in the grand scheme of things. As much as it's been valorized / dramatized in the decades sense, even at the time it was attacked because it was a less fortified part of the coast, with the closest German reserve further away. It was not exactly held by the German best (or most). That D-Day remains (for now) the greatest amphibious invasion in history is a testament to how hard the logistics of amphibious warfare is, not the combat-intensity at the point.
morphism
live long and prosper
29d ago
Leftists do this. Rightists do this.
The thing is that this is not true. As far as I can tell, the left is providing logically sound analysis and reasoning on the nature of reality and how to change it — ignoring some more extreme bubbles for the sake of argument — whereas the right is predominantly trying to frame the discussion in terms of tribes (as you are), which ignores basic principles of epistemology.
The case in point is immigration. (You and me had an exchange of posts about this.) A core sentiment on the right is that immigration is bad, but a rational analysis comes to the conclusion that it's not possible for both of the following statements to be true: immigrants taking jobs (net) and immigrants taking freebies from social security (net). It is telling that Trump is currently talking about reversing course due to business relying on immigrant workers — he got hit by reality.
AstralMateus
29d ago
"Why Should I Care?" is exactly the right question, and I don't think that our society has been able to properly engage with.
At this point the whole system is running on inertia, and what we see in East Asia may be a result of "the default life plan" ceasing to be either desirable or necessary for the majority of the population.
To paraphrase BAP's famous tweet, "Why isn't Final Fantasy XIV better?" is a question that secular culture has not yet been able to answer. Frankly, I would be interested in that answer for my own sake as much as for the sake of others – I've previously posted about my struggles with appreciating the "real life" and the physical world, so spiritually I'm very much in Dylan's camp. I just happen to prefer a bit more comfort and security in life, which is why I'm not picking pineapples just yet.
Until a solution is provided, and despite the shaming from boomers and the "just psyop yourself into an entirely different belief system, bro" camp, people will continue dropping out of society. Because, as things currently stand, the incentives structure is decidedly not in favor of living a real life in a real world, and unless you happen to be a particularly driven individual or grew up outside of the framework of secular hedonism, there's not that much value in the default life plan, with a regular job, wife and 2 kids, and all the struggles those involve, compared to the alternatives.
wayfarer
29d ago
with not much more justification than might is right.
Are you sure that it applies to for example Houthis?
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
29d ago
The Black and Tans are known, among other things, for failing to do exactly the thing they were intended to do.
No_one
29d ago
Dunno, trying to farm some quotes you could lob at DNS registries to try to get this place banned? Seems excessive for that, who would care that much?
It is odd behavior.
wayfarer
29d ago
No, strategic bombing has a mediocre track record and in most of those cases it was accompanied by full scale land invasions. Strategic bombing alone just makes the bombee really really mad at you.
Israel seems to be bombing very very specific targets in Iran. Up to nearly comical level - in some cases destroying specific room in an apartment block. Not demolishing entire cities.
hitler is in hell right now being forced to watch split screen footage of the jews precision striking the exact apartments of their enemies, and the germans decommissioning their nuclear reactors for no reason at all
mildly_obsolete
29d ago
I didn't say it was neighborly.
If 'nation-building' is supposed to mean anything other than conquest, then it is deranged and incompetent.
wayfarer
29d ago
Also, if something is too well protected for drones to blow it up: then drones can observe and summon artillery/missile strikes/glide bombs etc.
And it is not only on land, we had already plane being shot down by naval drones.
Main query: Are the blackbagging tactics of ICE a necessary evil, a dangerous overstep, or some nuanced in-between?
Main answer: None of the above. The ICE tactics you describe are not blackbagging by standards that would have been applied outside of Trump.
Ending query: Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the end goal of this administration is to establish a type of authoritarianism where people are kidnapped and disappeared because of vocal opposition to the regime, what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that?
Touching grass and recognizing that if you have to assume for the sake of argument that the outgroup is uber-boo, then you are admitting that the outgroup is not, in fact, uber-boo.
If the outgroup was uber-boo, you would not need to assume the conclusion for the sake of the argument, nor would you need to change standards to invoke pejoratives. Instead, there are years of precedent in of people not being disappeared for vocal opposition to the regime.
Conversely, acting on a false consensus that the outgroup is uber-boo, and then taking actions that merit a corresponding response in even a non-boo context, will instead be viewed as confirmation bias that the outgroup is uber-boo. Thus self-justifying more actions that do warrant detention from even non-boo actors.
These detentions, in turn, would be prevented by not perpetuating false perceptions that the outgroup is uber-boo meriting detention-worthy opposition.
wayfarer
29d ago
likely to sign off on and aid a nuclear strike on the city.
no, it is not likely for start USA does not benefit from breaking nuclear taboo and after Israeli clean up conventional bombing will achieve the same things at lower costs
I am predicting you are wrong and your prediction will fail (with chances of USA/Israel using nuclear bomb on Tehran being deeply below 0.0000001% )
The American economy is not dependent on imports from China, and neither does it rely on exports to it. All it needs to do to blockade China is block the straits of Malacca and Tiran.
More options
Context Copy link