JulianRota
8d ago
Non-fiction I'd say. Is Troubles Fiction even a thing?
That is the sort of thing I'm more interested in, thanks!
I have read about things like that going on. It seems to be a great truth that, if you as a rebel group do a sufficiently good job at booting out the Government and getting people not to trust them, then you now become the Government. People will start coming to you to resolve petty disputes and enforce order, whatever they consider that to be, and if you do a decent job at it, then you're just that much more powerful.
I'd read about the militias on both sides often spending a lot of time extorting businesses, and often even cooperating with each other on who got to shake down who, despite being technically at war with each other. Also at least the outline of reorganizing the RUC into PSNI, supposedly now with more Catholics. The efforts to integrate the schooling sounds very interesting too, though I don't know where to read much about that. It seems like the separated schooling must have been a big factor in keeping the communities split apart enough to create such a conflict in the first place.
JulianRota
9d ago
Reading Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland as part of an overall obsession with the Troubles.
FWIW, I'm still very interested in the subject, but haven't read that much about it in a while. I feel like I've had my fill of books about the leadership structure and decision-making of the various militias and Government departments, and what happened in all the big-name incidents. What I'd really like to read more about is the less prominent stuff, the experiences of the "little guys" on all sides and lowest-level fighters, the backstory of the lesser-known but more routine happenings that deeply affected the lives of the people involved (or ended them, of course). So far, this book seems to deliver!
JulianRota
9d ago
I think any such "vibe" is from clueless journalists and tech "influencers" over-predicting things either from simple total naivety or deliberately making out-there proclamations for more attention.
I think the main issue is more fear of unfriendly regulation and legal liability, and of bad publicity leading to the same. This manifests in several ways. First off, there will probably never be a personally-owned self-driving car. They're so complex and in need of constant maintenance and updates and being in perfect condition for the self-driving stuff to work right that nobody would ever be willing to sell one to an individual. Second, all the companies that run them are being very conservative about expanding their programs. Going too fast into new situations has too much risk of something bad happening. Third, the companies have a huge amount of control over who they let use them and where they let them go. They pretty clearly make careful use of this to not allow them to be used in any situation they think might be risky. And also keep all of the details about how they're doing that behind closed doors.
There's also the physical plant issue. Even if we had a perfect self-driving car ready for mass production today, it would still take decades to replace substantially all of the cars on the road in the entire country.
JulianRota
16d ago
Finished JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. The second half is more about his experience at Yale Law and how the social connections he made there provided him tremendous opportunity for advancement, along with various musings on what societal and/or policy shifts might be beneficial for his "hillbilly" communities. Nothing super innovative I suppose, but it is interesting to see the issues these communities have getting more attention.
It could also be considered interesting for what isn't in it. There's hardly a word about any sort of substance abuse by Vance himself, not any drug use or heavy drinking, aside from a brief mention that his urine might not pass a drug test when his mother tries to get some clean urine from him to pass her own drug test. Nothing about any sorts of petty crime either. Also nothing about any romantic or sexual interest or behavior aside from meeting and getting with his now-wife.
The positive and charitable take on this is that it's a book that's supposed to be about the economic and social problems of his community and how he overcame them, not a dramatic tell-all. There's also the cynical take that it was written with at least a hope, if not expectation, that it would lead to a bigger career in politics and so anything that anyone might find offensive or scandalous was left out. He does write a lot about how the social contacts and advice he received at Yale opened a lot of doors for him, so it seems pretty reasonable to assume they continued opening doors to making contact with high-level conservative political influencers and launching a skyrocketing political career.
JulianRota
19d ago
On 1, not to be too much of a downer, but to at least temper expectations, IME it's been extremely rare to nonexistent to have groups of friends based around an apartment complex. It might happen if the majority of people there are all in some new life situation, like just got to college, or just moved to a new city for their first professional job. If everyone is in very different life situations and already has their own group of friends and family, it's pretty much not happening.
IME, you can't form and sustain an actual group of friends by any individual's sheer will. Everybody who would be in the group has to actually want to be in a new group and make at least some active effort to keep it going. I've seen more than a few "groups" that one or two people seemed really invested in fade into nothing because nobody else was really that into it.
By all means try to be social to those around you. But probably a more realistic expectation is to maybe make one or two actual friends. Try a bunch of other activities as well. You may either find an already-existing group you might be accepted into, or maybe make one or two individual friends at several things and convince some of them to all get together regularly. And don't be too surprised if nobody you meet in many such activities seems to have much interest in being actual friends with anybody else there, including you.
JulianRota
21d ago
Interesting, I didn't know that! I'll have to take a closer look at how his career progressed.
At the point I'm at, I've been thinking, this is a pretty good autobiography, but I haven't yet seen anything that I would expect makes anyone think, wow I really want this guy to represent me in DC. Though I see it starting to go in that direction already with my last day's reading.
JulianRota
23d ago
Maybe! I've lived in or visited several big cities, and never seen or heard of things like that though. It seems more plausible to me that things might be more like what Maiq described in what I guess you could call "dead cities" - the medium-small cities that used to be thriving, but all of the industries that were there left for various reasons. Most of the decent people with good life potential also left due to the lack of good jobs long before things got bad. The resulting downward spiral leads to a pretty bad place.
But then, those places are not exactly havens of progressivism, and I don't think any blue-affiliated people are going to decide to move there, which was the point of this whole thread.
JulianRota
23d ago
I live in NYC, and I've never heard of anyone living like that. I've lived here for about 8 years, and I know of exactly 1 instance of somebody I personally know being affected by street crime, and that was just a phone snatching. Maybe some women carry pepper spray, but I've never noticed it. IMO, carrying pepper spray indicates that things are pretty safe because it's not very effective against much. I do know lots of people, men and women, young and old, who have no concerns at all about walking around alone late at night, even drunk. I've never heard of anybody telling people everything they're doing in case "something happens".
I'm not really sure if car break-ins are much of a problem honestly, mostly because very few people have them, and if they do, they mostly park them in expensive private parking garages. It does seem a little surprising I guess, but I would think I would have heard of it happening at least some if it was actually common.
It is fairly common for people who want to have kids to move out, but that's more because it's quite expensive to get a large enough space, not because of concerns about crime. There definitely are a lot of kids of all ages around, including in strollers and being walked around. Enough that it's reasonably common to be mildly annoyed by someone wheeling a baby stroller around in a place that seems kind of inappropriate, like inside a crowded store.
JulianRota
23d ago
Reading JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. It's a much shorter book, I'm halfway through already.
I'm not sure if there was much in the way of ghostwriting or assistance on this, but if it's not much, then it's remarkably good writing for a sitting politician.
It reminds me a little of Sowell's Black Rednecks, White Liberals, which put forth the idea that quite a few of the dysfunctions affecting black culture were actually copied from the white hillbilly culture.
JulianRota
24d ago
I get the same non-24-hour cycle thing, for a long time it seemed like my body wanted to live on a 25-ish hour cycle. This mostly manifested in being unable to fall asleep when I wanted to, despite being woken up by an alarm at a consistent time. It seems to be mostly cured since I started taking Melatonin about 2-3 hours before the time I wanted to go to sleep. Now I mostly sleep pretty well at around 6-7 hours a night. I don't believe the Walker take that everyone must have 8 hours a night no matter what and you're doing something bad if you don't.
Alcohol has weird and complex effects on my sleep cycle depending on exactly when and how much I drink.
I have been doing mostly-Keto for weight reasons, which I started a number of years after I started using Melatonin. I hadn't heard of the sibling's claim that it also affects the non-24-hour sleep cycle thing, but it seems plausible.
JulianRota
30d ago
Finished reading And The Band Played On. It didn't really change my views about anything, but it revealed a few aspects that I find interesting.
When I got to the last quarter or so of the book, it started to feel to me like it was an excessively negative or doomer take on the situation. Like, okay, things were pretty bad early on, but we're finally making some real progress, can't we acknowledge that? But nope, it's just negative takes, so we'll just blow by the actual progress and find some new negative aspect to focus on.
Were they correct to slow-walk the response at first? If you look at the actual death toll over the first few years after it was recognized that AIDS exists and is a communicable disease caused by a pathogen, it's pretty low. Only 618 deaths in 1982. 5596 in 1984. It wasn't until 1983 that somebody first calculated that the mean incubation period was likely to be in the neighborhood of 5.5 years, which would infact imply a tremendously increasing death toll over the next decade, which did in fact come to pass. And that of course is just one statician's opinion. How long for that to be accepted to be true by the whole scientific community? How many times has a single or small handful of scientists claimed that something they were working on would be super terrible in the future, so we should invest a ton in it now, which would incidentally be very good for them personally, but turned out to be overblown? I bet it's more than a few. Note that Covid-19, which we responded to far more vigorously, blew right by those early-1980s AIDS death counts in a matter of weeks. The fact that homosexuality was so broadly disliked didn't exactly help, but it doesn't seem super unreasonable that society as a whole didn't jump instantly to fight a disease that doesn't seem to hit all that many people.
It seems likely that a lot of the spreading took place long before there was any recognition that AIDS existed at all. This makes it pretty tough to construct an even vaguely plausibe counter-factual where AIDS is stopped from spreading.
The book seems to poo-poo the idea that it isn't necessary for the Federal Government to allocate extra money to AIDS research, these Federal medical institutes already have plenty of money and are already free to allocate as much of it as they want to anything their scientists find interesting. I think this idea seems pretty reasonable. If AIDS is so important and so dangerous, why can't they infact reallocate money away from other things and into AIDS research? Why does everything need even more of our tax dollars thrown at it? Yeah some scientists will bitch and moan that their pet projects are no longer high enough priority to get funded, but so what. As far as I know, the corporate world cuts off lines of research that aren't sufficiently promising all the time and tells the affected scientists to suck it up. I don't think it's all that terrible for the Government to do the same.
Another aspect that seemed interesting was just how wildly promiscuous at least some members of the gay community are and how opposed many of them are to any suggestion or attempt to cut down on that lifestyle. There was tremendous pushback against things like closing down bathhouses and discouraging gay orgies. It's interesting how all of the poor arguments we complain about today about how doing anything at all mildly negative for any "oppressed group" for any reason, including to try to prevent those people from spreading and dying of an actually lethal disease, is obviously a step on the road to genocide against them. I guess the internet isn't actually that special and there's nothing new under the sun.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I think focusing on deportation number is missing the point. AFAIK, all realistic plans include most illegal aliens leaving on their own, because driving your own car with your own stuff back is better than being snatched up at random with whatever you have on you at the time and dumped back in Mexico or wherever.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I don't know a ton about the for-sale or streaming industry, but I can say that cover bands that do live performances seem to be pretty common and popular. It's a pretty good deal for everyone. If you want to see an actual big-time popular band, you probably have a wait a long time for them to go on tour, pay out the nose for tickets, especially ones that aren't terrible, navigate the hassles of going to and from some huge venue that might be far away, paying for overpriced food and drinks to maybe parking too, etc. Cover bands play the same songs, even a bunch of popular songs from various artists of the same genre, and usually do it for cheap tickets at smaller local places that are easier to go to and have much more affordable food and drinks, and do it regularly. If you just want to jam/dance/mosh/whatever to your favorite songs and aren't that concerned about exact musical quality or seeing the actual band in person, it's arguably a better experience.
JulianRota
1mo ago
Have we brought up yet the possible effect on Republicans of the lack of movement of the black vote by any reasonable means? If the conclusion is that blacks will vote Dem by >90% pretty much no matter what they do, possibly up to making them practically immune from prosecution and given unlimited money, then it naturally follows that their votes should be suppressed somehow rather than attempting to earn them.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I believe that most things that effectively reduce the impact of each particular politician have the net effect of transferring power to what we would call the "deep state", all of the unelected aides, assistants, bureaucrats, etc that actually stay in the same jobs for long times. This is usually in reference to tougher term limits, but I think it would apply to dramatically shorter terms too.
There is tremendous power in having long experience in a system, knowing what has and hasn't worked in the past, all the ins and outs of all the little rules, who knows how to do what, etc. The more we limit the amount of time actual elected politicians spend in office, the more we transfer that power to their unelected aides who actually know how to get things done, and can slow-walk anything they don't like while accelerating anything they do.
I don't think any "tools" can fix that problem, because it's about power. Tools that actually increase a politician's power effectively versus the system will never be built, because it's not in anyone's interest to make it easier for any newcomers to accumulate power. Power is only effectively increased at the expense of other people with power, who can't be expected to cooperate in the process.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I don't think anything is likely to happen tonight or tomorrow, assuming nothing massively and obviously wrong happens.
Risk might possibly go up significantly in the weeks and months after, depending on who is deemed to have won, by how much, etc.
JulianRota
1mo ago
FWIW, usually the justification has been that the margin of victory of the winning candidate in most races is much higher than the total volume of mail-in votes, so it doesn't actually matter. At least besides the pseudo-religious justification of having those mail-in voters believe that their vote "counted".
It remains to be seen just how many more mail-in votes (legitimate or questionable...) will take place in this election.
JulianRota
1mo ago
It does indeed have the thing where, yeah the overall culture is super blue tribe, but there's just so many people overall that, no matter what weird thing you're into, you can find some other people into it. So it's not that bad, but still, you can't help but notice that most random people you meet will be somewhere between mildly and rabidly against my political opinions.
I do sometimes wonder if, along FiveHour's point, I may be just too contrarian and independent overall, or at least not quite rabidly red enough, to really fit in in a deep red area.
JulianRota
1mo ago
Nope! NYC is very captured by Blue Tribe. Most of the ones I meet IRL are NPC-level, spewing mindless hatred. The Motte is probably the only place where I can at least sometimes have reasonable debates with reasonable Blue Tribe-rs that isn't immediately drowned out by mindless shouting.
Better for life? That's a tricky question. It could be thought of as bad that so many people seem to hate your guts if you lean Red. But on the other hand, it means you have an automatic connection with anyone else who does too. It feels like it makes things more fun in a way. In theory it could be good for debates, but I meet very few blues who are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to debate issues and actually have the temperament for it.
Will I move somewhere eventually where most people are more ideologically similar to me? Beats me. As I've gotten older, I've gotten less willing to make big pronouncements for the future, since I have no idea what my situation will be or how I'll feel 5 years from now. I don't think there's been any point in my life where I could have made accurate predictions that far out, so there's not much point in trying.
Naturally, all bets are off if something really out there happens, like an actual national divorce with states and regions breaking away from the United States, or actual secret police hunting down ideological dissidents for long sentences in reeducation camps. I still don't think anything along those lines is really likely to happen in my lifetime, but I no longer dismiss the possibility out of hand. Maybe like 5 or 10 percent chance.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I think it's mostly the former. Possibly there are a few creative writing exercises on there, but I'm doubtful there's anything organized like that going on about it.
Nobody is going to go to that much effort to spin up male attention just for kicks. If somebody was doing something like that, it'd be for money, and there would be pretty clear tells. Links to OnlyFans accounts or other paid fetish porn sites easy to find, use of accounts that were purchased for higher karma or otherwise artificially karma-boosted by lots of unrelated low-effort posts in mainstream subs, lots more active engagement with male "fans". Not to mention being quarantined by Reddit would be a death-knell for such an operation, to be avoided at all costs or abandoned if unavoidable, rather than a mild inconvenience with some upsides, which is how it seems to be treated. Plus, people doing marketing-like things mostly just aren't all that creative. Go on any porn sub on Reddit, you'll find OnlyFans links behind almost every profile. That's what spinning up male attention looks like.
It smells to me a lot more like a group of fantastically weird people who are mostly self-aware about how weird they are who have built a small and out-of-the-way community to discuss their weird thing than some kind of artificial operation. Perhaps not all that different from this forum here infact.
JulianRota
1mo ago
Yes, there are whole subreddits full of them. /r/Rapekink for example. Yeah I have a thing for digging up weird corners of the internet where utterly bizarre stuff happens.
Evidently, there is such a thing as "rape baiting", where women who actually want to be raped, for whom role-playing isn't enough, go out seeking to be raped. They have a whole FAQ on it, trade tips on how to do it most effectively, and share stories of their most successful attempts!
There's also a lot of women posting there about what happened to them and how they feel about it. Many seem to be struggling, not quite sure how to feel about it. Things like, not liking it, but also not wanting to think of themselves as victims, not seeing it as the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone. I can see going to a place like that when you don't really want the fawning sympathy treatment but aren't quite sure what you actually think about it.
I have no clue what percentage of women overall think or feel along these lines. Even coming up with a way to measure it accurately seems difficult. But there's enough written about it that I don't think it's all fake or like 0.1% or anything like that.
JulianRota
1mo ago
What do you mean by "going 100 per cent"? Are you just pedaling very fast? The exact ideal pedaling cadence varies between individuals, but you should probably be in the ballpark of 90rpm max, no matter how hard you're working. On an actual bicycle on the road, you use your gears to keep your pedaling in the range you're most comfortable while going faster and exerting more force. On a stationary trainer, you should be able to increase the resistance to get the workout you want without pedaling excessively fast. If your trainer can't increase the resistance enough to put you at the effort level you want without pedaling way too fast, then that is an equipment problem that needs fixing.
You might want to try and find a spin class at a proper gym to try, at least once, just to see how you compare to everyone else and get some input on what's really wrong.
Suggestions for how to do interval training and times and intensities aren't really something I know enough about to give advice on. It probably depends a lot on exactly what your goals are - general cardio performance versus actually being competitive at some particular type of racing.
JulianRota
1mo ago
This sounds super weird to me. I did entry-level competitive cycling on a college team for a few years, and have never heard of that being a problem for anybody. Even with plain flat pedals and ordinary shoes, your foot shouldn't ever slip off. Maybe you're trying to pedal way too fast or have some kind of weird foot motion or position or something. The axis of your toes on your foot should be roughly directly above the axis the pedal rotates on.
Pedals with straps to hold your foot on are indeed a thing, as are various types of "clipless" systems where your shoes lock in and only come out with a specific twisting motion, but they're only really beneficial for allowing you to exert force on the pedals on the upward stroke. If your foot is coming off the pedals, you should fix whatever issue is causing that before you do an equipment change.
JulianRota
1mo ago
I tend to think that analysis of why the media behaves the way that they do can't be separated from the Internet sucking all of the money out of advertising. The days of major news media sources paying generous salaries for skilled, intelligent investigators with deep knowledge of some beat and at least some sense of ethics are gone, maybe forever, with the drive to the bottom for advertising money.
The only thing that brings in enough money to keep the doors open is clickbait-level reporting and commentary catering to whatever the current audience wants to believe. Anyone not prepared to do that mostly gets driven out, since there's damn little money for anyone else. Even the ownership seems to be mostly people who primarily want to either protect themselves from too-harsh criticism or use them as a weapon to attack their enemies, and so is willing to accept losses or much lower profits than a disinterested investor would expect.
I had a feeling that sentence would come back to bite me, especially since I actually wrote a movie review of '71 on the old sub about 3 years ago. I've also seen Derry Girls (feels a bit forced IMO, but okay), and read Bandit Country. Sounds like a lot of other potentially interesting things to read too, and thanks for the anecdote.
The parallels with our current culture war are part of what makes it interesting. They did seem to also have the "politicization of everything" effect - ordinary citizens who aren't particularly political for either side having to worry about the politics of the people and businesses they interact with to do mundane day-to-day things.
More options
Context Copy link