@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

It is done occasionally at smaller scales. Although the example that comes to mind is the NYC building that partially collapsed over the summer while they were trying to do so; obviously not all roses.

Unless you attach the outer end to the pole, or use some unusually stiff cloth, it will partially unwrap like you see in the example here. But not impossible, I suppose.

Worth noting that, AFAIK, none of them consider themselves "trans" either: the eligibility rules here don't purely exist to handle transgender athletes.

The American flag, at least, is prominently blue on top with white stars when hung on a vertical pole like this. Flipping it would make the top section red-and-white striped, and look IMO completely wrong.

An increasing number of sports bodies, at least at the world level, are adopting genotype-based eligibility rules, maybe with some theoretical exceptions that are probably impossible in practice.

I've seen at least a few people argue "let the sports bodies decide", only to change course once those bodies disagreed with them, but maybe many have quietly accepted those decisions.

property tax revenue from rental properties and second homes, which don't get the homestead exemption.

For long-term rentals, this presumably does get passed on as increased rent. It could be acceptable policy, I suppose, but I would describe that as "actually live there" too. Perhaps the incentive here to buy a home is fine, but worth considering directly.

Passing it on to Airbnbs sounds fine, though.

If we're embracing "brute-force utilitarianism", we might as well shuck anything other than heteronormativity from school curricula anyway. Why should we care about the concerns of small minorities? The greater good is at stake!

We shouldn't do so, obviously.

connotations of literal pedophilia,

I don't think it outweighs the rest of the argument, but it seems relevant that certain parts of the mainstream center-right remain deeply uneasy about the comfort of the Pride folks with, for lack of a better term, age gap relationships within their communities. To their credit, they did largely kick out NAMBLA, but stories like Milo's are not exactly uncommon.

They also won't let kids of 17 and 11 share a tent these days, for similar reasons.

The term "Nintendo hard" usually refers to games from the early 90s. Nintendo makes a lot of more approachable titles these days (although some of the completionist features remain quite hard).

I have mixed feelings on difficulty changes.

I wouldn't have had the vocabulary to describe it 20 years ago, but I think the uncanny valley element might still have been there. I can only claim a casual familiarity with figure drawing references like Loomis, but the proportions are very male. Waist-to-shoulders, arm length, hand size seem wrong, for example.

But it's not inconceivable that it's just an artist that has different ideal proportions (there is variance: see Reubens), maybe on the basis of their surroundings, or that the classic texts aren't being taught. There is a decent variance within the population, too: serious women's rugby players look different than gymnasts or runners.

He would definitely be an exception, sure. Looking closer, there were maybe a few others as well.

Finished Seveneves. Still only a "meh". Last third felt like a worldbuilding exercise without a clear point. The events of the first few pages never really got a satisfactory conclusion, and past a certain point just stopped getting mentioned. Also it's really long, and didn't need 800+ pages.

Starting As I Lay Dying, not far enough to have an opinion yet.

No scout troop for males only.

Last I checked, for the troop level, units are still single-gender. I think they were trying a true co-ed troop concept recently, but decided against it. There are some pairs of boy/girl troops that meet at the same place and interact quite a bit, but at least around here it's less than half of them, I think. There are also all-girl units. From talking to some friends who are leaders, starting a girls unit can be difficult just because of the number of people you need to commit to regular involvement (IIRC 5 registered adult leaders and at least one female leader present at all activities with female youth).

The other levels like Cub Scouts are co-ed, as is Venturing (which has been for a long time). The Cub Scouts are mostly too young to care about it, and other than having a lot more girls present at larger events, it seems a lot like it did when I was a kid.

I use "God willing" in English occasionally. The meaning "except if prohibited by Providence" is otherwise a bit difficult to phrase.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this, but all the descriptions I've read have given me the understanding that it was about religion only in the "deeper cultural substrate" sense, although not completely decoupled from the actual churches.

I recall someone here referencing a joke about whether a victim was "a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist". Similarly, the Unionists didn't always seem keen to listen to, well, the Union side, of which the Queen was head of state.

Control software for cold gas thrusters that can be throttled arbitrarily up and down is probably easy by comparison.

It's not clear from the video, but it'd be interesting to see whether they're regulating the high-pressure air to a constant thrust, or just accepting that thrust varies as the tank empties. The former loses efficiency and adds weight, but the latter has a lot of added "fun" in the controls math.

Itโ€™s about a much deeper cultural substrate. Itโ€™s about much deeper questions of identity and belonging.

This sounds like The Troubles: it's often described as "Protestant v. Catholic", but the Pope and the Queen (literally the heads of the most prominent churches involved) were loudly not supporters of the conflict. But still the conflict persisted.

So how do we get from here to a point where it isn't?

The fundamental flaw with Rules Based Order today is that it lacks a trusted, fair arbiter to enforce it. Team America, World Police is maybe the closest you we've gotten to it, and almost anyone is going to be able to point out the flaws in that model (they may disagree on specific incidents, but not on the overall conclusion). You'd need to get buy-in and perceived legitimacy in how you make and enforce the rules. And those aren't easy questions: which government has legitimate sovereignty over certain regions or peoples (many such cases)? Who gets independence and who gets subrogated to another state? What sorts of international trade should be allowed, or not โ€” how do you feel about whaling? Carbon emissions? WMD programs? Superintelligence? What army enforces the rules against willful violations?

None of these are easy questions, and I don't propose wholesale answers to them here. But existing attempts at frameworks other than "One Liberal Nation Rules the Waves" [1] have treated these as unimportant or easily settled, devolving into Mean Girls clubs (foreign intervention is okay when we do it) or ineffective stages for international grandstanding (see the UN). One man's terrorist might be another's freedom fighter: how do you convince everyone there you can fairly decide? I certainly don't have a good answer for you to any of these.

  1. While it has its flaws, I will point to Anglo-American hegemony deciding to end the open slave trade largely by fiat on the basis of internal philosophical debate to be one example of how this isn't always bad.

While I listen to some of what they say, I expect that the average Rationalist is about as rational as the average Objectivist is objective. Which is to say not worthy of much trust on its own. I listen to Rand stans sometimes too, but never blindly.

Does anyone today other than the US, Russia, and China? Aerial refueling can extend multirole fighter ranges (Israel v. Iran for example), but it's not the most effective from what I can tell.

Airplanes from 1939 stand little chance today, except in quantities: I doubt even today's USAF could fully suppress a few thousand-bomber raids. Nobody has that number of missiles that I'm aware of.

I suppose I could just go to mass and LARP, but that's sacrilegious

Is it? I've never been Catholic (have considered, at least), but all the high church traditions I'm familiar with are very sympathetic to doubt. The biblical story of doubting Thomas doesn't condemn Thomas for it, for example.

Note that "good" for progressives is very much a moving target, and that previously-good things sometimes become "bad". Not usually overnight, but see how "ending the drug war" was going to solve all our drug problems two decades ago, and compare to today when many municipalities and states have effectively unilaterally withdrawn from it. This has led to excesses that we hear a lot about today, and the vibe, from what I can tell, is shifting towards "maybe letting all this chaos happen in cities hasn't been compassionate" and even "the trains and busses should be safe and run on time". A century ago, progressivism was pushing Prohibition, because alcohol was "bad", although given cultural shifts in drinking before/after, I'm not sure I can easily judge that, honestly.

To be a bit generous, the worst excesses here seem to happen in areas for which there seems to be no good answer: it's nice to think that restricting the police will reduce violence and let drug addicts hold down jobs. But it's also naive to think that will wholesale fix our problems. And a lot of the excesses seem to be assumptions that going harder on the "nice" idea will fix it, when we're well beyond the diminishing point of return: "more school funding" when our failing schools already have 2-3x the per capita budget of the rest.

I'm not convinced of it's accuracy, but "the left proposes changes, not all good, and the right resists them, especially the worst ones" as a framework wouldn't be completely unworkable. Lots of continuous improvement sorts of systems work this way. We try things, and adopt them more widely when they work, and revert them when they don't. Our willingness to try things varies over time. To use a car analogy, not every model year improves over the last in every way, but most consumers probably prefer a 2026 Western (or even Chinese) model over an unchanged 50-year-old Lada design built this year.

It's not my favorite model, but I am not really in favor of letting either side of the CW declare moral victory.

now is the time to think seriously about going back to Reddit

I'd actually disagree with this. Reddit has recently ended login-free read access to the site. And it has lots of AI content filtering going on beyond terrible subreddit moderators. I see more than a few "removed by reddit" posts (for some reason, the posts sometimes get filtered after being viewable for a bit) with thought crimes like failing to use the latest TikTok filter euphemisms for violence ("unalive", "grape", etc) or daring to link to local news sites mentioning these things.

Now feels, if anything, a more dangerous time to move back: coordinating the move was difficult enough, but for the frog to jump back into the warming water would be a bad choice.

If anything, the declining amount of commentary seems to me downstream of an uneasy dรฉtente in the Culture War: there is just less drama to talk about. Normies seem tired of extreme takes right and left, and we're maybe begrudgingly coming around to the old "don't talk politics and religion in polite company" rules.