site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 233952 results for

domain:arjunpanickssery.substack.com

Germany was particularly guilty of letting Austria-Hungary do this

Strudlhofs Gone Wild!

The image of the hilariously-named Hotzendorf and Bechtold von und zu Ungarschitz, Frättling und Püllütz just absolutely HOUSING pastries and getting flaky crumbs all over the draft ultimatum to Serbia is sadly ahistorical. It doesn't stop me giggling over it, though.

You've run elections as part of the implementation of the electoral process, or as a consumer of the data and metadata resulting from the electoral process? I have to imagine campaign staffs would want to know the motives of those voters that would turn out for them but for some factor, so they can correct that factor - or, offensively, make them worse for the opposition.

That makes it sound a bit like you’re not simply not voting, you’re not really “participating” at all.

I’m also grappling with whether or not to vote at all, so I’m asking myself as I’m asking you—are you actually doing anything other than complaining? And complaining in the most ineffective way to the least degree possible?

To the second question you asked, an attempt at a steelman would be to imagine you’re in a room with a bunch of people and dinner plans come up and you say nothing. The choice is narrowed to two restaurants and you say nothing. A vote is taken and you think it’s pointless so you leave during the vote and come back.

It seems to me even if you’re the only one who wants Mediterranean and there’s no hope of swaying enough to your side, you still come off badly if you can’t even be bothered to say that.

Like I said though….grappling with it myself. Not sure what I’ll do.

No, see, this is exactly what I was hoping to elicit, and thank you: a composite version of my dad with similar ideology that can make the non-vapid arguments that he can't. I don't think he's even heard of game theory, or knows why defecting is bad, or finds results using it as an argument compelling. I'm sure that stronger arguments for his position exist, and I've got a couple sketched in my back pocket that I'm withholding to avoid bias, I'm just trying to get them from a wider audience than my own head.

Deal, see you then.

Im fascinated by the transition period around the turn century as it is simultaneously remote and foriegn and yet at the same time immediately accessible in the sense that primary sourses are widely available and the seeds of our modern world for all its good and ill are immediately visible.

Mine is hardly a unique take (better historians than I have already written whole books on the subject) but i think that WWI was an inflection point, and the seminal tragedy of the 20th century. I say tragedy specifically because it is so hard to pick out any one cause or villian. Sure some might point to Gavrillo Princep, but he was less the cause and more the careless spark that finally lit the pile of oily rags. It almost feels fated in a way. Everyone involved seems to have been making reasonable decisions and assumptions for the information they had available the problem (if one can call it that) was that the world is messy and complex and a lot of their information wad either incomplete or just plane wrong.

In contrast the opening of WWII might as well be a Saturday morning cartoon in its simplicity.

Sure there is the argument to be made that Britain could have avoided both wars simply by reneging on previous agreements with Belgium and Poland and renouncing the RN's role as guaranteurs of maritime trade/safety but I don't see how anyone remotely familiar with early 20th century British politics and culture would see that as a realistic option. In alternate history terms that is pretty close to an "alien space bats" type scenario.

Regarding Cooper in particular i find it interesting that his complaints about Churchill seem to mirror a lot of the longstanding complaints about him from the far left. IE that his stubbornness and devotion to outmoded/obsolete ways of thinking prevented him from meeting the socialists and anti-colonialists half-way and subsequently brought ruin to the nation. Of course the classical rejoinder from the trad-right is that it is precisely this stubbornness and devotion to "outmoded ways of thinking" that made him the man for the job.

A "reasonable man" would not have been able to credibly deliver a speach like "we shall fight on the landing grounds".

Started reading And The Band Played On, about the handling of the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early 80s. Seems interesting so far, and I have at least some expectation of it going against some of the things I believed.

To pre-register what I currently believe, I think it was probably handled within about a standard deviation of about as well as it could reasonably be expected to have been, considering both the highly novel nature of the disease and the behavior of the victims, including being highly reluctant both to seek medical care and to cease high-risk behaviors like sharing needles to inject drugs and highly promiscuous gay sex. I am skeptical that any reluctance of authority figures to take it seriously due to the nature of the victims was a bigger factor than either of those. Considering that even now, ~45 years later, we still don't have a great handle on medical treatment, it's hard to see doing more sooner helping much. The only thing they could have semi-realistically done differently was to crack down much harder on those high-risk behaviors, which probably would have been pretty ugly and would have further outraged the affected community. So yeah, AIDS sucks and hindsight is 20/20, but give us a realistic alternative that the people involved could actually have done if you want to really convince me that we screwed it up.

Motte Factorio Space Age Coop Campaign?

Sure. The study IGI was looking at said HR complaints were ~half of reports. Police rarely came into it.

I’m saying I expect MeToo takes a distant back seat compared to the traditional dating woes of insecurity and embarrassment.

I think you might be underestimating the sheer scale of Australia's food surplus; we could lose a lot of efficiency without Australians starving (as opposed to Asia starving from our exports stopping), because we've got 2.5 times the arable land/people ratio of even the USA. Transporting it is still an issue, but Australia does have some oil.

Austria-Hungary.

Germany gave lots of very aggressive assurances to the country, which would otherwise not have dared to provoke Russia. And not just realpolitik tactful deterrence—things like “Germany stands ready to draw the sword!” The “blank check” is the most famous, but sentiment was very much in favor of brawling. If the Schlieffen plan had paid off, if they’d stayed out of Belgium, if France had cold feet about aiding Russia, if if if…there were ways it could have panned out favorably. But no plan survives contact with the enemy, and Germany had a lot of enemies.

Wilhelm II more generally bought into the militaristic romanticism which had served Prussia and early Germany so well. He collected honorary military ranks and was quite optimistic about the indomitable German spirit. But it wasn’t 1871 anymore, and a British/French/Russian coalition was a lot more likely. He exacerbated the problem by poking at French and occasionally British colonies.

Also, he loved his boats. Thought they were the most important symbol of national prestige. Built a ton of them, directly challenging Britain for naval power. Not great support for the continental hegemon thesis. I mention this mostly to argue against the hypothetical where he’d give up the fleet to keep Britain out of war. Not a chance.

I’m going off what I’ve been reading in Massie’s Castles of Steel. If that’s out of date or revisionist, trust @Dean over me. But from what I’ve seen it holds up.

I don’t know how you can look at that and think “America.”

Because I think America/NATO actually achieved what Germany (according to its modern defenders) was trying to achieve, peace through unquestioned dominance on the continent of Europe. America doesn't view itself as aggressively expansionist, even as NATO expands, because its military actually is so dominant that it seems only natural that other countries should want to join our military alliance. So America is definitely not like Germany if the comparison is "young upstart power with something to prove", but America does seem similar to Germany in its view of a peaceful world order, i.e. everyone should just do what we want.

But hey, I'm just getting into this stuff for the first time, my curiosity having been sparked by the much-maligned Twitter. Maybe there is no analogy to be made, but I appreciate getting informed pushback from people who know a lot more about this than I do!

I tend to think the opposite. Most of the trouble in modern politics is too many people are invested in and care about politics, especially people who know very little about the topics at hand. People weigh in on things like AI and have no idea how it actually works. Or policing. You don’t understand crime you really shouldn’t be telling experts how to deal with crime. If anything, I think the government and political systems work much better when people are fat and happy and could care less about what’s going on in Washington.

Which is precisely why assassinations are less horrifying?

Yeah, we had assassination attempts, but we didn’t have two nearly successful attempts on the same political figure within two months of each other. That’s pretty unusual. And especially as by the second time, the SS had intelligence and knew that there was an Iranian plot to get Trump. They still can’t get their act together.

Solar and battery technology have rapidly expanded, greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

I'll play coop when the expansion drops. Don't want to get burned out on the game before then.

Careful selection of "politically driven" rather than "politically motivated." July 13th doesn't seem to have an agenda aligned with either of the political sides.

Another reason for the comparison: they both have the same direct solution.

Always!

... ] Now back to geeking out about long-dead men.

This is the sort of enthusiasm that keeps me here with a smile at times like now.

Fortunately a lot of Australian food can walk in flocks for quite surprising distances! They wouldn't even have to become nomads

Always!

Color me skeptical, though, that you’re going to find anything revelatory on Twitter. It’s not a trove of forbidden knowledge. It’s entertainment, and edgy contrarianism is a costume like any other.

Now back to geeking out about long-dead men.

Wilhelm II’s Germany was well-armed, proud, and above all, young. He desperately wanted to move it from a second-tier power, beset by rivals on land and sea, to a hegemon. That meant colonial purchases, a massive naval buildup, and the quest for a reliable neighbor. He did alright on the first and really well on the second. Unfortunately, he ended up with Austria-Hungary.

I don’t know how you can look at that and think “America.” NATO stands in the UK position of sea dominance, commercial dominance, but limited appetite for intervention. It’s not in the German position of encirclement, and it doesn’t burn with the need for “a day in the sun.”

Conversely, American geopolitics is compatible with leaving Ukraine to Russia. That doesn’t generate a threat to the homeland, and it doesn’t violate any actual treaty. We haven’t done so because 1) we’re getting a decent return on investment and 2) we’ve got a bit of a complex about letting the bully get what he wants. That’s our job.

As I understand it, Trump could cut all weapons sales to Ukraine by revoking their ITAR license. I wouldn’t expect that to supersede any Congressional allocation of aid, but I don’t know what the proportions look like. Do I think he’d actually do this? No. Probably not. Well, it is Trump, and long-term consequences have never been his strong suit. The point is, he’s got leverage over our industrial contributions to the war.

On a completely unrelated note, it still keeps surprising me how rich Americans are. People just drive around with V8 engines.

Australia is not going to have a long-lasting food shortage due to our immense food production and paucity of viable nuclear targets

You may still have them once you get a fuel shortage. Growing food is one thing, trucking it to the cities is another. Planting new crops the next year will be hard without fuel for the agricultural equipment. Australia has a lot of coal, but you can't just put it in a truck. Coal can be liquified, but you'd need to have the infrastructure for that in place already, plus you'd need to modify the engines, which, modern eco-conscious computer-controlled engines aren't going to like much. You also need spare parts; this problem is, again, exacerbated by the fact that modern agricultural equipment is often locked down by the manufacturer so they can milk you for repairs, which will be a problem when their HQ in the USA gets nuked.

The SKS is the ultimate successor to the Winchester 94- all the same fundamental limitations, same form factor/overall size, same power of cartridge (.30-30 is far weaker than its case size would otherwise suggest).

The AK kind of fits that description too, but only in the sense that it technically has a Win 94 compatibility mode (the Saiga rifles being the best example) rather than having been designed solely with that mode in mind.

They didn’t stop approaching because they were scared of being arrested for harassment

The beauty of the whole system is that you now suffer the consequences even without even ever being arrested. A woman can make a social media post about you and you get all of the social stigma of being guilty without any of the due process. Most people who suffer from this are simply thankful that only their social life, career, or both were destroyed and that they aren't in jail.