SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225

In short: the elites in our society no longer have skin in the game because they are protected from facing consequences for their failures. And he expects that this will go poorly, so we need to go back to making the elite face consequences for failure.
I think your point still stands even with the misunderstanding. It's hard to envision a good argument that any amount of civil unrest in the last century was worse than open warfare in the 19th.
You might be content to choose nihilistic "might makes right" philosophy, but I'm not. There is a moral order, and actions can be wrong even if they succeed. If Trump finds cojones, as you put it in another comment, and defies the supreme court, it will not be a righteous act of a brave man standing up to villains. It will be a naked power grab by a man who doesn't like that he can't just get his way. It will, in short, completely vindicate all the people who have claimed that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. I am not going to embrace such a path. But you do you.
At this stage in this country's political evolution, which rhymes with the end of the Roman Republic, the executive is absolutely justified in crossing the Rubicon, just as Caesar was.
He was not, and the executive will not be if they do.
there’s a baseline level of general quantitative knowledge that one needs to know in order to meaningfully partake in discussions of civic importance.
I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I certainly don't agree this is one such case.
The all-inclusive annual cost of having an employee in a first-world country is about $50,000 - $100,000. The US military has a lot more than 15,000 active duty personnel. You don’t have to know anything about how much ships, tanks, or planes cost to know that $892 million will not come close to covering US military expenses.
But you do need to know that the military has that many people. I certainly don't, and said as much.
Also bear in mind the context of this whole sub-thread. I never claimed to be good at estimating what the military budget is. Hell, I never claimed to be good at anything. Hydroacetalyne is the one who accused me of being passive-aggressive, on the basis that "everyone knows" the military budget is way bigger than $892m. All I'm saying here is that everyone does not know that, nor is it realistic to expect them to.
Thanks, that does put things into perspective. Like you said, I don't work with these kinds of numbers at all so I really had no idea how much this stuff costs.
Why on earth would I have any more idea what other countries spend on defense than I do with the US? I don't think you're factoring in how little basis for comparison the average person has here. To an individual, $892 million is an enormous amount of money. Even if I lived 100 times as long as I will, I still wouldn't come close to having that kind of money (I've done the math and figured I'll make about $2 million in my lifetime if things go well). I have no idea how much military equipment costs. I don't even have any idea how many people the military employs. So I don't even have figures I could use to try to make a rough estimate (not that I would've bothered, because I could just look it up easier than that). This is simply not a topic which your average person would have any reason to know about.
Thank you. I had no idea what the spending actually was, so I didn't have a frame of reference to judge numbers as making sense or not.
It's not passive aggressive, and I did not in fact know that. I'm not sure why you would expect most people, let alone everyone, to have the faintest idea what US military spending is.
Is there a typo somewhere in your post? You said we spend $892 million on the military and Trump wants to go to $1 trillion. Elsewhere people are talking about a 10% increase in spending. But going from 900 million to 1 trillion would be way, way more than 10% to say the least. So I figure one of the numbers has to be in error here.
Bring back handwriting lessons in lower grades, to start with.
It seems like they should do that regardless. Computers should be a tool to aid you in being more effective at things you could do anyway, not something with which you can't get by. Kids should be learning how to write by hand even though they can write on a computer, just like they learn how to do math even though they can do it with a computer.
To be even more precise, it means that the people who trade in the market believe it's a net negative for those companies. They may not prove to be correct.
I don't really drink much, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis drink fairly sweet drinks where you can't taste the alcohol. My go-to is Malibu and pineapple juice, but even just a screwdriver can be good (cause orange juice is delicious).
Maybe, maybe not. But that's still a choice.
This is why I personally didn't like Commander Shepard filling such a special role in Mass Effect rather than being the right soldier in the right place at the right time to save the universe.
It's especially bad because as Shamus Young pointed out, that's the story Bioware originally set up! Shepard, in the first game, was a soldier who happened to be in the right place at the right time, got a bunch of Prothean knowledge crammed into his/her head, and was positioned to save the universe because of that stroke of good fortune. Then the ME2 writing team completely scrapped that for whatever reason, and made Shepard a chosen one. It was a real unforced error from Bioware.
Nobody is choosing to be in a proxy war with Russia, we are at war with them whether we like it or not.
That makes no sense whatsoever. A proxy war is always going to be by choice. There is no law of nature that says we have to arm Russia's enemies, even if they were to take more territory. The only point at which we don't have a choice is if they decide to start knocking on our door.
I certainly felt attachment to the characters in Warcraft 3, and I liked Arthas. So your experience was not the one everyone had. In fact, I thought that the story in War3 was overall pretty good.
Carmack definitely wasn't right. But he wasn't entirely wrong either. Not all games need a story, let alone an elaborate one. For example, Tetris would not benefit from the blocks having elaborate backstories. But some games do need a good story (gestures at the entire RPG genre). It's all about what you prefer and what kind of game you want to make. Carmack's error was in assuming that the kind of game he wanted to make (gameplay-heavy, story optional at best) was the only kind of game worth making.
I would second that. Mass Effect 2 was effectively Bioware changing from making an RPG to making a shooter because that would sell better. On top of that you have all the writing problems, which Shamus Young covered in great detail. I think that the only reason that ME2 gets remembered fondly is because of the large cast of characters who are by and large excellent. If not for that, I think it would be more widely recognized as the beginning of the downturn for Bioware.
Down thread, @UnopenedEnvilope said that this particular power was delegated to the president by an act of Congress. Maybe this will wake people up to the dangers of Congress abdicating their jobs and giving control to the President, but I somehow doubt it.
Can't have losses if you never put money in the market. taps head
No idea. It's just something I've seen kicked around on the motte in the past; I'm way too ignorant of Chinese goals to say if that's something they'd want even if offered it.
The relentless naked blood libel from my "betters" directed towards me is insufferable. If any other country attacked the US with intentions to conquer it, I'd at least be willing to hear them out.
Yeah, I get what you mean. We've had some posters talk about how they wish China would take over the country, and on the one hand that's an obviously bad idea. The Chinese government really is a repressive, authoritarian government with a culture very foreign to ours. It would be rather miserable to have them rule us. But on the other hand, I get why people say it. There's only so much naked hatred and contempt you can see your countrymen show for your values and your way of life before you go "fuck it, maybe at least those other guys would consider letting me live the way I want. I know this group never will".
- Prev
- Next
I've always hated this aphorism and I was glad to see Scott arguing against it. By definition, the purpose of a system is what it was intended to do, not what it does. Trying to redefine "purpose" to be about outcomes instead of intent is a silly linguistic game that I have no patience for. And, as Scott points out, it leads to "purposes" that are obviously incorrect.
More options
Context Copy link