@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

I think he simply forgot to point his index finger

Didn't catch that, but the (impromptu?!) a capella America the Beautiful by Carrie Underwood was delightful. Hearing the crowd sing along like a proper church hymn gave me a little thrill.

Would it be fair to say, then, that if it could be demonstrated that the costs are not inherent to the technology, then you would support (or at least not oppose) nuclear power installation?

I think what you are missing is that there are parallel developments which call into question whether the high price is actually inherent to the technology in the way we've been led to believe. The most direct parallel here is space launch. Not very long ago, the price per kilogram to orbit was high enough to make satellites prohibitively expensive for anyone but nation states and extremely well-capitalized corporations. Human spaceflight was all but unthinkable for anyone except national astronautics programs. The conventional wisdom was that this is just the nature of the problem: rockets are expensive and expendable, development requires decades of engineering, and there are no real major technological advancements achievable without new fundamental breakthroughs.

But this turned out not to be the case! SpaceX entered the market and proved that using iterations of well-known designs, hiring the right people and compensating them properly, and leadership pushing hard at schedules and milestones while also driving on costs, you actually could dramatically lower the cost to orbit beyond what anyone thought possible, while still being profitable!

So with this context, there's lots of reasons to be skeptical that the cost and feasibility barriers cited for nuclear power are real. As with liquid-fueled rockets, this is a reasonably well-developed and very well-understood technology. The bulk inputs are concrete and steel, inexpensive things we know how to build with. We don't need fundamental breakthroughs. What we need are industry leaders with the drive to engineer better reactors designed for safety and mass production and for the NRC to streamline the permitting process to something with clear, reasonable requirements. Unlike with rockets, we unfortunately also need reform in the building permitting processes that are also used to block or delay every other major infrastructure project, but I don't think that's an impossible dream.

So, your interlocutors may well believe that the cost factor, as real as it is today, not be inherent to the technology, and that we have everything we need to unlock the capability to manufacture and deploy nuclear power facilities as quickly and cheaply as combustion turbines, if only the right combination of leadership and policy falls into place.

I think you are underestimating the raw appeal of simply being willing to lead people to attempt glorious achievements.

The serious response is that if you are a physical threat to someone (and almost all men are to almost all women in a one-on-one situation), or otherwise in a position to hurt them (let's say your wife, who will predictably take your side in a dispute, is their boss and landlord) it is really easy to make saying "no" difficult.

This is a slippery slope all the way to "all hetero sex is rape". Would you bite that bullet? ISTM that there needs to be a pretty large bias against second-guessing the judgment of individual women if their claim to fully equal members of society is to hold any value.

Just dropping a couple bucks in the tip jar is usually enough

Everyone dies. The goal is to die well.

On balance I think it did

The question is very concrete and clear: is it bad for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to threaten to invade several countries which until now considered themselves as US allies?

I reject the premise: neither Trump nor Musk is seriously proposing a full-scale military takeover of any U.S. neighbors. Contingent on them actually doing so, I would judge it to be a bad idea for reasons completely unrelated to fascism.

That depends a lot on who is doing the invading and who is being invaded, doesn't it?

So, if all the really bad things about fascism are not the ones that we are doing, what exactly is bad about fascism?

Does that apply to contractors?

Isn't the through-line that connects these things together just good, old-fashioned Gnosticism? The religious view that the material world is evil and that the subjective relgious experience is primary is all that is needed for to connect propensity to suicide, disgust with the material world, obsession with purity and disease, and antinatalism.

There might be some psychological root to that as well, given that it seems to pop up many times through history, or some kind of philosophical prion that warps the perception of reality of anyone who comprehends it.

Heinlein was directly on point:

“Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken—whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?”

“Why . . . that’s the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!”

“I agree. Or a child. Whose fault would it be?”

“Uh . . . why, mine, I guess.”

“Again I agree. But I’m not guessing.”

How convenient it is that we live in a world where doing what matches my preferred ideology also results in making more money! You'd have to be a complete idiot or an extremist bigot not to pick up that free money that's just sitting there on the table!

Ironically this might actually be true (eg, Candy Crush), but at the same time the autists and transgenders that primarily pushed this reasoning at AAA game devs and were tasked with designing them were uniquely unsuited to designing games actually appealing to the modal woman.

Thus I would phrase it more as "Membership in a group is not an acceptable reason to treat one person worse than another."

I don't believe "group membership" was ever a significant factor of the issue. It was always the characteristics of the specific individuals involved. E.g., nobody ever campaigned against allowing a gay man to get married to a woman.

'The joining of two complementary sexes to form a well-rounded whole', being, if not a religious belief per se, at least religion-adjacent, is not a legitimate foundation for government policy

This is only true if you take for granted a very modern libertine view of the role of government. In reality, "religion-adjacent" concepts like morality, justice, and the promotion of human flourishing have more or less always been the proper aim of law, since prehistory. The movement for gay marriage won not by persuading some people that these are illegitimate ends but by persuading them that gay marriage does not in fact have any negative consequences along those lines. However, not everyone was persuaded by that judgment, and it is not an act of hatred to be skeptical, a mere handful of years hence, that that foretold negative consequences will never manifest.

One thing that might be likely is for him to get to appoint a SCOTUS justice. Sotomayor could and probably should retire and let Biden appoint her replacement while the Democrats control the White House and Senate, since there's no telling how long it might be before they control both again. A quality pick would be a good legacy.

I think it's worth noting that levels of fluoride in the water much higher than the recommended dosage are unlikely to be caused by intentionally dosing the water, and more likely to be caused by naturally high occurrencee of fluoride in the source water supply. So, if this were a scandal, the scandal would primarily not be the dosing of low levels of fluoride for dental health, but the laxity of the water safety regulations.

He doesn't want the World's Fair, he wants an American exposition similar to some of the great World's Fairs, with the states showcasing themselves instead of countries.

Covid, definitely. The fear of both the disease and our response politically activated people to an unusual degree, and we have regressed to mean.

You might think so, but as far as I can tell, Trump did absolutely nothing to protect free speech or slow down cancel culture.

Rescinding the Dear Colleague letter, for example

Not exactly, but I think the law school to career politician to president pipeline is discredited. I think a lot of Trump's advantage is that he's been a familiar figure in American lives for so long as to actually be source of nostalgia, which is an electoral superpower, but without having been a career politician, who people generally dislike. This was Reagan's power as well. Both parties should invest more effort into recruiting candidates from outside politics who excude confidence and come with good long built-in relationships to the general public. The tricky part is finding ones who actuality want the job and are willing to endure the campaign. Democrats have a huge supply of sympathetic actors, though, so they should probably recruit there. Big problem is this would be extremely unpopular among the career politicians that run the parties, as they feel they have earned the right to run for the top position.

This is the wages of identity politics, unfortunately.

I was wondering about Calibri and Candara Counties