VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
If you're talking about the entire continent, I think it's worth observing that Cannae is generally considered to be one of the most tactically successful battles in recorded history.
I wonder if elected officials could be banned from social media.
There are a few court cases now suggesting that elected officials don't have (on their bon-personal accounts?) the right to block people on social media. I think you'd need to go fishing for a precedent that this encompasses chosing platforms that "block people" in the same ways. Which doesn't sound completely crazy: Trump blocking people on Twitter and getting Truth Social as a platform to ban people (also blocking them from sending DMs) both limit contact with public officials.
On the other hand, if you go too far in that precedent you'll block politicians from email spam filtering (I was trying to petition my elected leadership to help me save this member of Nigerian royalty!) or attending events in any access-controlled spaces.
When I was in college, they added a universally-required undergraduate writing course (fortunately with a test-out option). I suppose "Graduates of $PRESTIGIOUS_INSTITUTION should be able to string two sentences together write persuasively" makes sense from the board's perspective, but at the time I remember thinking that requiring calculus would probably improve those outcomes more ("should be able to understand derivatives and complex statistics"). In some ways it felt more like an excuse to hire a lot of adjunct faculty and grad students to teach those classes, although it might have made sense targeting international (mostly graduate) students.
I'd like to think I am considering the object level: Maybe it's not the most direct accusation, but I do think the "Stormfront or SJW?" comparisons have a concerning kernel of truth to them more broadly. In this instance, the fact that they're German is mostly being played for dark irony, and I don't really think (currently) makes them inherently better or worse than other SJWs.
This seems like one of the better ways of handling it, although it does demand that healthcare providers become sufficiently actuarially competent to properly forecast costs as part of their operations: maybe not great for small-time practices at a time when lots are getting bought up by larger networks as it is. For better or worse, many hospitals already have to do things like that to handle EMTALA and the fact that they can't actually expect all their patients to, you know, pay.
Imagine what the Germans will do with a cultural narrative dominated by how one nefarious minority group has willfully and surreptitiously organized to keep those righteous, industrious workers at the bottom of the totem pole of economic, cultural, and world power.
Wait, I think I've heard this story before...
Of all the Israelies who have fired a weapon in combat in the last 20 years, what percent have been women?
A number of the hostages in Gaza were female IDF soldiers, but I have no clue how many of those actually fired a weapon.
I think in context, the party line you should reference is "There is no war in Ba Sing Se."
I believe the current administration has started moving against regulatory disparate impact standards generally, but even where it has applied, it's pretty consistently only in specific directions.
It can also include charging everyone the maximum they are able to pay. And it can be passed off as "we meet people where they are and offer discounts for low-income patients," which sounds really nice (and may be in some cases), but can in practice take the form of "charging everyone as much as they can afford". This seems to also happen with college tuition: "it costs a million dollars a year to attend, but we'll be nice and settle for the difference between your parents' paychecks and the federal poverty line".
I don't have a firm answer for where I think the ethical line should be on income-based discounts.
I've long assumed that either the insurance companies or the care providers (or both!) want to keep the list prices hidden. I assume for competitive reasons. I thought the first Trump administration passed rules requiring those to be published, but that doesn't seem to have done much in practice (published, behind a door marked "beware of the leopard"?).
My personal suggestion is that we should, as a condition of accepting Medicare patients/payments, require providers to charge no more than a multiple of the Medicare price list, even if that multiple is something like 2 or 3.
Chicken wire comes in a couple of different sizes, but the mesh sizes available at my local hardware store are 1" and 2". Online it looks like 3" exists, but is still too fine for a 100mm sphere, which seems about the size of a small chicken you'd want to use the wire to fence.
Although even McMaster doesn't quote a load capacity, it can be fairly sturdy stuff. May still not be a good fir for this application.
To steel-man the idea that "knowing the cost" is always possible, I'm not sure it'd be reasonable to expect my (car) mechanic to define payment terms for a fix before even popping the hood. There are enough potential complications in complex procedures (emergency cesarean sections in childbirth, for example) that probably can't be trivially bundled up front.
That said, most of those cases are ones that don't really seem like they get much benefit from market-based economics either. But presumably somebody has to shoulder the cost of the not-completely-expected procedures that are found to be necessary: I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the idea of single payer for this specific sort of thing, but haven't thought through all the bounds I'd apply there.
if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.
It may or may not align with case law, but my first reaction to this statement is observing that most states have laws on the books controlling when and how landlords renting dwellings can re-establish control of unit occupancy and use. "I have to wait several months to evict my current tenants" seems to imply that someone else has "control over the occupancy or use of the property".
The thing is, I don't think it's possible to make another great Star Wars movie- all the good ideas were completely used up in the original trilogy.
I think Andor was really well executed --- I worried they'd bungle a second season because a small passion project got attention and the studio execs would demand creative control and make terrible decisions (see The Mandalorian). But I think it shows there is plenty of room for world building and character arcs that exist in the same universe galaxy, but aren't heavily tied to the Skywalker saga of the trilogies.
I watched Solo and actually really enjoyed it.
IMO it wasn't bad (nor amazing) when I saw it later, but I probably would have seen it in a theater if TLJ hadn't been so bad.
I found the "ring up and sass the villains" part broke the illusion for me just a couple of minutes into the movie, and it was downhill from there (dropping bombs like a B-17, really?). The idea that prank calls were relevant (or that secure authenticated comms wouldn't be expected) a long time ago in a galaxy far away was way too far, IMO.
The UCI started requiring helmets during the Armstrong years (there was a year or so in which they were allowed to remove them on a terminal climb in a race). The aesthetics are maybe worse (Fignon's pony tail!), but there really have been (and continue to be, and I'm not going to look at rigorous stats right now) a number of fatal high-speed crashes in bike races that helmets may mitigate somewhat.
My understanding is that the occasionally-seen soft helmets of the 80s were less about mitigating concussion-type injuries and more about road rash on scalps. I'd like to think the science has gotten better there.
After that, they were looking at having their airfields and critical infrastructure systematically dismantled by Iranian missile strikes.
I think "dismantled" is overselling it here. Sure, burning through interceptors isn't great, but you seem to be comparing "Iran got in a few good hits" to "Israel was free to hit all but the hardest targets for as long as it cared to." There seems to be this common bias towards seeing Western nations as glass cannons, where only a few good hits are required to bring them to their knees, and you can win as long as you can tank whatever they throw at you (which is maybe limited by "moral" concerns about indirectly harming civilians) until you manage that and negotiate an outcome that favors your objectives. I think if you're against the West fighting a war they got involved in by choice, maybe this works to convince democracies to choose peace (see Vietnam, et al). I don't think it immediately follows that this applies to something more existential (see Israel vs. Gaza, or Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor).
If landing (conventional) ballistic missiles into enemy capitals was a decisive victory, the Germans would have won WWII.
Also, this all hinges on the United States actually entering the conflict, which nowadays I would call a pretty big if.
Maybe true, but this is still a pretty big "if", and the existence of the question has prompted Europe to start actually investing in defense.
Most of the modernization went into magic beans (F16s, M1 tanks) that are serviceable but apparently not that magical in modern warfare.
I don't think this is as clear-cut as you want it to be: maybe it is, but we also just saw a brief war between Israel and Iran in which the former was seemingly able to establish air dominance with modern "magic beans" against a country equipped with largely modern Eastern bloc air defense systems. I don't think Iran even claims to have shot down a manned aircraft (compare to this years' India-Pakistan skirmish, which had several).
I don't think it's completely crazy to suggest that a Russia-NATO conflict might look, in the air, like a scaled up version of the Israel-Iran conflict, and I'd expect air dominance to make it pretty one-sided. It's also believable that it'd fall into something looking more like the present Ukraine conflict where manned air assets are of limited utility. But for anyone thinking it's a good idea to start such a conflict, to steal a good movie quote: "You've got to ask yourself one question, 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well do you, punk?"
To be fair to Microsoft, they have been bitten several times by governments accusing them of anti-competitive practices for doing things that (which I would agree are anti-competitive) Apple gets away with on the regular because "they are a minor player" (so they can have the only default storefront for installing Mac OS software) or "the phone market is different" (so they can completely lock out other ways to install software on a major platform). Apple has had its share of cases, but "use USB" doesn't seem as onerous as that Microsoft has been required to do for browser selection and such.
Although most PCs these days use EFI rather than BIOS, and at least a few years back, and Device Tree on ARM is, comparatively, a recent addition over the previous state I hear was even worse. Microsoft isn't in a place to make major bets to try to displace x86 OEMs without huge legal battles, whereas Apple only needs to support it's own hardware designs, and so we're all stuck in a world of long-term backwards compatibility, although IMO it's worth most of the complexity.
At least in TOS, I think the intended comparison is between the Vulcans and Jews. The Vulcan hand sign is also used in Judaism.
To be fair, TOS Trek includes some pretty clear allegory where conflicts with the Klingons and Romulans (one episode of basically submarine warfare) are also themselves allegorical for the Cold War. The movie Star Trek VI is pretty interesting to watch because it's loosely portraying the end of the Cold War that had just happened (complete with a coup attempt, but no *Swan Lake).
But the recycling of villains into friends did occur multiple times (see also the Ferenghi) and you have a pretty reasonable take on how that was done more broadly.
But I would argue that the defining feature of a religion is a monopoly on morality, just as the defining feature of a government is a monopoly on violence.
This is the most satisfying definition I think I've ever heard for religion. Most have trouble with the fact that there exist "religions" like (some of) Taoism and Confucianism that don't rely on the existence of divine deities per se.
- Prev
- Next

Hasn't enrollment in English programs actually dropped in the last few decades? Despite meme status (I assume from Avenue Q), the folks I know who are passionate about the English language specifically tend to be surprisingly focused --- one carries around a print copy of the complete works of Shakespeare wherever he goes. I think anyone looking for an "easy" major without concern for career prospects ends up in the ones you listed at the bottom. Sadly, that doesn't mean the employment prospects for English majors are actually much better.
More options
Context Copy link