@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

Yeah, but every time the topic of "we invented intelligence" comes up, the fact that we really don't have a definition for it beyond Descartes' feels relevant.

For the record I agree with you here: war is always a terrible choice, although maybe there are times when it's the best available one. I don't know details here, but it feels like there were other, better options here.

My claim in the lateral thread is more observing that, generally, preferencing some definition of "inaction" can lead to worse outcomes, and it feels like this is related to the perceived indecisive malaise of modern neoliberalism.

For a more relevant, concrete example, I've heard at least one or two historians opine that if the Allies had responded more firmly to the German annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, they might not have needed to do so at a much more dramatic scale when it attacked Poland (heck, the immediate response to that was anemic, too, until the Germans had turned around to attack France). Declaring "peace at all costs" is a sucker move from a game theory perspective.

Typically discovered, but as you get into more niche parts of mathematics, I think the construction of useful, novel axioms and the proofs therefrom move closer to invented. "The Rubicks Cube group has always existed" is a valid take, but feels weird to me.

I suppose this is related to the question of whether the basic axioms and concepts are truly universal (true in any universe), or whether, say, a hypothetical universe with different prime numbers could exist. Did God create the integers?

There is no proof-of-work or proof-of-humanity

With apologies to Descartes, "always has been". While cogito, ergo sum manages to demonstrate that I exist to myself (at least, I find the argument compelling), I've never been able to satisfactorily prove that the rest of the world and everyone else as I perceive it exists, and isn't some big simulation demonic manifestations or imagination.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Because despite both political sides complaining that it's stupid (with different reasoning), the One Drop Rule seems as powerful as ever.

Wait, is this "smoke machine as in theater" or would a Catholic censer count?

Famously, nuclear reactors were never historically involved in previous weapons projects (yes, not for "enrichment", but for producing plutonium).

Whether or not this specific reactor is well-suited for that purpose is unclear from the context and the quote. IIRC the standard US research reactors were designed to be difficult to use this way. I'd trust the nonproliferation folks to know how all the physics works, but somewhere between them and the journalists the context was lost, possibly deliberately.

To be clear, I agree it'd be a massive loss for all involved, and I'd much prefer to never see it happen. I think China could have played its cards differently and probably achieved voluntary unification, in much the same way that Trump's unify-with-Canada comments set back what is probably a good long-term idea by a generation. Violent subjugation is a terrible choice on all accounts.

You can't use the general existence of unpleasant tradeoffs to justify a particular set of actions; you need to actually articulate a defense of why a particular tradeoff is worth it.

This feels like a common generalized critique of modern neoliberalism, though: "You can't do [THING], it might cause [UNPLEASANTNESS]", where [THING] ranges from "Invade foreign nation", which has pretty obvious unpleasantness in most cases, to "enforce existing immigration law", all the way down to "build that apartment complex" for values of unpleasantness like "would require destroying a historic, um, laundromat" or "would cast 1% extra shadow on a public park". We've very much used this set of unpleasant tradeoffs to justify privileging inaction in lots of cases, many with pretty clear consequences for the rest of us, although I think there is certainly reasonable ground for not blindly charging ahead with everything.

It's much the same as when it shows up in international politics: "Palestinians are firing weapons (rockets) at Israeli population centers again. But we can't allow them to respond -- someone might get hurt!". I'm not going to claim that any particular action is justifiable, but I've seen a lot of long-term bad consequences enabled by choosing inaction as a response assuming it'll be free in the long-term, just because the short-term "unpleasantness" is pretty clearly defined. And it's clear that some parties take advantage of these stated values to push boundaries and normalize worse outcomes.

I suppose somewhere in here could arise a principled (anti-woke?) political philosophy that prioritizes "we make hard choices, not because we relish them, but because we don't want them badly chosen for us."

A decent chunk of the right at the time thought Clinton was bombing Belgrade (including the presumably-innocent Chinese embassy!) to distract from the scandal of dalliances with (among others) a 22-year-old subordinate in the Oval Office and lying about it to Congress. That accusation at least had specific damning evidence and testimony behind it.

Pakistan

Note that the Saudis aren't a nuclear-armed nation for the purposes of the claim. That they're being funded to do so as a proxy for a non-nuclear power seems to be relevant to the discussion, but they aren't in the "nuclear club".

South Africa

This is a better example, but nobody has ever clarified what the specific "assistance" was: was Israel a nuclear-armed nation at the time, or was it a joint project to become such. I'd point to the US-UK cooperation in the Manhattan Project as perhaps an Ur-example of my claim: it was a joint project through the end of the war, but as soon as the Americans had the bomb, the British found it wasn't quite so "joint" anymore, and had to mostly redevelop it on their own.

The post-1945 nuclear club of nations has always been pretty exclusive. I can't think of any example where a nuclear-armed nation has deliberately aided a non-armed nation's nuclear weapons development programs, even between otherwise allied states (lots of spycraft, though). I haven't heard hints of Russia helping with Iranian or North Korean weapons development (although civil nuclear is a different story). Nuclear ambitions have typically gotten states international pariah status: China's relationship with North Korea has demonstrably soured since it became a nuclear state, and India and Pakistan both got some level of sanctions for a time before and after they tested weapons.

As to specific responses from specific parties, I'm sure someone's been paid to debate those, and I don't think I have any particularly insightful ideas there.

Just like "nazi" became "everyone to the right of my AIDS-positive trans activist HR manager", "woke" now means "anyone with higher moral standards than Genghis Khan

My feelings to both sides here are along the lines of "What did you think war meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?". War is war, and there will be innocent casualties. Either the war is morally justifiable and those are regrettable consequences, or it's not --- frankly, leaning toward "not" personally here on the basis of what information has been shared with the public. Expecting an innocent-bloodless war, even just a precision bombing campaign, seems naive on both sides. Heck, Clinton managed to bomb a Chinese embassy.

I can see the reasons for establishing such a unit, and I think it sounds on paper like something easily justifiable. But if I had a nickel for every veteran account I've read along the lines of "We were under strict rules to not fire unless fired upon. We watched [enemy] truck in a heavy machine gun and ammo all morning, constantly calling our commanders for permission to dissuade them or to leave the area, and were ordered to stay put and hold fire. After they were all in place, they opened fire on us, and two servicemen were injured. We returned small arms fire and vectored in close air support, neutralizing the enemy." I'd have at least a few nickels. I wouldn't exclusively side with either the boots on the ground (plenty of examples of misbehavior in the past), or with the ivory-tower academics arguing ethics of war thousands of miles away with no skin in the game, but I see a reason to listen to both.

This is less a claim of technological superiority, and more a claim of geography: we only care about Iran here because (1) it has oil and (2) it has a commanding viewpoint controlling the flow of large quantities of (other countries') oil. But for those, it'd be much more comparable to Afghanistan. China has many of the same geographical problems with global power projection that the Germans had in the 20th century: a comparatively small effort on the part of their rivals (in that case, the British) could control German trade out of the Baltic because it had to flow through the English Channel or the North Sea.

It's a related concern to Russia's continued interest in warm-water ports.

how easy is it to make a TEL.

This presumably depends on the technology for your missiles: if they're dumb ballistic things, you probably need to be very confident of where you are launching from and where they're going to point them the right way. If they're liquid-fueled you may need extra targets tanker trucks to fill them once they're vertical. Smarter missiles help a lot with that (see why the Navy now uses VLS instead of missile turrets), but doesn't necessarily solve your problems like precisely initializing guidance systems.

Also it will be interesting to see if how cutting off shipping through Hormuz impacts China: in a hot war, it seems pretty easy for Taiwan and its allies (some combination of the US, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines) to cut off shipping to every Chinese port in much the same capacity, which is presumably far more painful.

There is no big technical hurdle they cannot quickly overcome.

At the moment, it seems likely they lack effective delivery mechanisms if nothing else: ballistic missiles aren't as reliable as they used to be, and I'd bet many of their avenues of sneaking something into Israel aren't what they were a few years back. Launching an unprovoked nuclear attack and failing is something that I don't have much precedent to go on, but I doubt enamors one with any existing nuclear powers.

Given the current state of Israeli diplomacy with literally every other relevant state in the region, why would attacking a third nation make any sense there? They've mostly put out generally supportive statements and countered attacks. Kuwait also shot down some US fighters in a friendly fire incident, but was presumably thinking them Iranian.

Iran has done some of that recently: what did the Azeris do to them? At best they are either flailing around --- it'd be hilarious if Israel, Ukraine, or US intelligence caused them to inadvertently strike Chechnya --- or trying to appeal to the negative sum game of a more regional war.

It isn't 1991 and the other Gulf states demonstrably won't reflexively refuse to be on the same side of a conflict as Israel, and that gambit didn't even work then.

Even worse, they might go all in and start bombing gulf desalination plants, at which point you guarantee a humanitarian crisis.

There were headlines about strikes on desalination plants a few days ago. We might already be here.

Iranian mine laying speedboats and other platforms are still operational. These are very hard to target from the air, theyโ€™re small, easily hidden, widely dispersed along the coast.

I've seen this claim a lot recently, often from the same people complaining a few weeks ago about (frequent) recent US strikes on similar accused drug-running speedboats in the Western Hemisphere. I'm not going to say it couldn't be a problem with sufficient numbers, but with air superiority it seems something a couple dozen drones with modern sensors could deter pretty effectively over a lengthy coastline.

I think we're slowly (re?)discovering the value of shared culture. A couple generations back technology didn't really allow highly-individualized culture, although it did allow regional variation. Broadcast media has nibbled away at the regional variation for a century at this point, but the niche individuality is much newer, driven by point-to-point technology. It's never needed to be an explicit choice before because we were content-limited, but I think we're starting to see people choose explicitly to watch what their friends are watching.

Those who pay the surcharge reduce the cost of labor to the employer...

Heh, I recently got to answer a tip prompt on a credit card reader from a sole proprietor.

From each according to โ€œhow much do I want to be (seen as) an asshole, today?โ€

There is certainly an element of this, especially IRL. But there are also examples like Andreas Kling writing much of SerenityOS and the Ladybird browser while paying rent with donations for BSD-licensed software.

desert

Not a word I associate with upstate New York, usually, although I'll admit I've never been to Woodstock.

Comparisons with modern Burning Man in Nevada probably aren't that far out of line, though.

The growth of tipping culture in the US, as much as I dislike it outside of specific traditions, does feel like a negative sign for capitalism: "you can just ask people if they want to pay more, and sometimes they do!" Whole careers have been built around Patreon and pay-if/what-you-want models.

On the other hand, this feels less Marx ("from each according to their ability") and more Banksian post-scarcity: "from each according to 'eh, why not?'".