@ToZanarkand's banner p

ToZanarkand

Some day the dream will end

0 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

				

User ID: 2935

ToZanarkand

Some day the dream will end

0 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2024 March 15 18:08:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2935

Huh, Shark Bay is apparantly bigger than Israel. I'd unironically be in favour of this if Australia made the offer.

and since I'm given to understand the U.S. generally sucks at the types of infiltrations that sabotaging all of Hezbollah's pagers would have required

Does it? I know nothing about this area, but I'd have assumed the US would have the resources to become top performers in any field related to national security.

True. At the very least though, the Romans weren't following the current trend of ME nations impoverishing themselves for the sake of killing Jews not within their own borders.

I wouldn't go that far, but I stand by my position that those who decide to try to persecute Jews don't tend to have great things to show for it.

(Although post WWII, you could argue they have been historical winners, which is arguably more relevant for deciding whether going to war against them is a great idea).

Ah I misread 200 as referring to people affected. My bad.

I do wonder when people will stop picking fights with the Jews. None of them seem to learn that it never ends well.

Anyway, it is impressive, if pointless.

I've seen it suggested that one of the main aims of this incident was to throw H's communications into disarray. They were already avoiding standard modern telecoms for fear of being spied on, now they've found out that their alternative isn't safe either.

That's fair, I was feeling lazy and posted the last account I saw reporting it. FWIW I'm pretty sure I heard it being reported to be in the thousands by the national broadcaster in Sweden.

Somehow, Israel hacked the pagers used by a couple thousand Hezbollah members. And then they made the pagers explode simultaneously, leaving over 200 of them seriously injured.

I've seen posts on Twitter suggesting the casualty numbers could be in the thousands.

The main positions I've changed stances on would be:

1/ The British monarchy: I was a pretty hardcore republican when I was younger, now I don't have strong feelings about them either way, but I have a lot of appreciation for things like the monarchy as unifying symbols of tradition that grounds the nation in its history.

2/ MENAP Immigration: I always thought that the decisions by countries like Germany and Sweden to throw their doors wide open was a bit rash, but I've become especially black-pilled in recent years on the socially destructive nature of immigration from particular regions, even if they are genuine refugees.

3/ Criminal justice: I used to be a big believer in rehabilitation (and still am, when it can be done) but I've come round to the position that a lot of people who go to prison, particularly repeat offenders, aren't likely to change their behaviour when released and the best thing for society at large would be to keep many convicts locked-up.

By their explicit, stated reasoning these committees would rather make the happy person's live miserable until they are exactly as sad as the other person.

A pretty common variant of this philosophy exhibited by the left in the UK is the occasional suggestion to do away with private schools. No one should have something better than anything else, so let's try and destroy some of the nice things some people have.

Even when I was an unabashed liberal I found this sort of thinking unpleasant and off-putting.

Sweden is much less densely populated than most other countries people compare it to and that has a large effect on viral transmission.

One silver lining for Republicans, according to that model, is that they're at least well funded by donations from smart right-wingers who make it big in the fields you mentioned (at least in finance and business).

Did you know that 8% of global carbon emissions come from the production of concrete,

I would assume the processes involved in producing things like steel and concrete are amenable to electrification. Most serious suggestions for how to tackle climate change come down electrifying as much as possible and generating as much clean electricity as possible. Of course for this you need a lot of nuclear energy, which is needlessly politically contentious.

How likely is it that Trump will do something about the Houthis

Fairly likely, I imagine. It seems that the west has treated them lightly so far out of fear of doing anything that might result in civilian casualties, which I don't think Trump will be too concerned about.

How likely is it that the Houthi shipping attacks will stop because they expect Trump retaliation without Trump having to do anything?

I couldn't say.

I live in Europe so the US presidency only really affects me through its effects on foreign policy. With that context, I lean towards Trump as he'd be far less timid towards Iran and their proxies, even if I don't like that he'd be less supportive of Ukraine than Biden (although my sense is that Biden's administration isn't providing enough support for Ukraine to meaningfully change the likely long-term outcome of that conflict anyway).

OTOH my family would probably be very upset if Kamala didn't win, so I guess I don't really know what outcome to hope for.

I'm really glad for the presence of Twitter since Musk took it over. I don't know where else I'd so easily be able to access news that the legacy media would prefer to be hidden away.

An Israeli chimes in.

The TLDR is that fertility is essentially memetic: people have about as many kids as they see the people around them having. The theory is that the structure of Israeli society means that the high birthrate of the ultra-orthodox filters through to most people (even among the most secular groups), as there are enough conducting social layers between them that such memes can be transmitted between groups from one end of the religious-secular extreme to the other. Perhaps @pm_me_passion could comment?

The author compares this this with most other first-world countries, where there'll be highly fertile groups like The Amish, but who are (according to this model) too isolated for this to have much of an effect on anyone else.

An A* in History is easier than a C in Further Math.

A-level results in 2024:

Percentage of A* grades in History: 5.7%

Percentage of C grades (or above) in Further Maths: 89.8%

There could of course be a selection effect, whereby brighter students take FM than take History (which could explain why 28.7% of FM students get an A*). Still, I don't think that alone is enough to make the argument that History really is that much easier than FM, given the massive difference in grade attainment.

For what it's worth, Oxbridge students are generally very smart IME, regardless of what they study.

And by third tier I meant still within the top grouping of UK universities,

Fair.

Getting into one of the least-subscribed courses at Oxbridge is easier than getting into many degrees at even third-tier British universities. If they did math or medicine it is fair to say they are probably pretty smart.

This is a stretch. I'm not aware of any Oxbridge course that will let you in without a minimum of AAA at A-level, while maths at UEA will consider you with ABB if they're the right subjects (and UEA isn't third-tier). You're right about medicine, but that's a bit of a special case.

They don't want the CEO eaten because the other workers would get more. They want the CEO eaten so that there's no more CEO (and maybe some few sympathetic cancer patients can get treatment).

I like the post you're responding to, but this is a key point you raise. You could tell a lot of people that banning billionaires wouldn't measurably improve the lives of the poorest people, and many of them would respond with "I don't care, we shouldn't have billionaires while there are people starving or without proper healthcare".

Jim/Stephanie Sterling (if anyone here knows who that is) was prolific with statements of this kind. "No one needs a billion dollars" or "You don't make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars" are two ones I recall them frequently making.

These two issues seem pretty orthogonal. Russia succeeding in Ukraine would certainly upset a lot of western elites, so I suppose someone could support them for that reason, but I'm not sure whether there's any strategic logic to it.

Why are you anti-EU?

Brazil was the 4th largest agricultural producer (in dollar terms) in 2020, so the weather is good enough for that at least.

This was my question. If anything I'd assume it was worse in the past, given lack of regulation and transparency.