Erik Haugen

Computer programmer

"From what we can tell, Haugen works at Google. So much for "Do no evil."" – Kent Anderson

Public Key

npub1adavm6dq36ya04x25l2rq9dz22ct37rlcc8hm8yu5dvrm6g05s3swkc3s6

NIP-05 Address

ech_at_qoto.org@mostr.pub

Profile Code

nprofile1qqswk7kdaxsgazwh6n9204pszk399v9clpluvrmanjw2xkpaay86ggc9343ye

Author Public Key

npub1adavm6dq36ya04x25l2rq9dz22ct37rlcc8hm8yu5dvrm6g05s3swkc3s6

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-09-11 03:14:43

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I don't know, I think Russia was more the one entering that deal out of fear of invasion (from Britain), but I suggest the geopolitical realities are maybe a bit different these days.

2024-09-11 02:47:40

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 yeah but like come on they aren't going to invade Alaska.

2024-09-11 02:45:24

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 yeah, think of how much blood is on our hands because of this.
re. Europe: I'm not saying Europe is *responsible*; that isn't my point; I'm just noting there's more at stake for them than for the US.

2024-09-06 17:25:22

- reply

@npub1gpa…xlk0 Good discussion in the comments.

2024-04-23 22:17:29

- reply

@npub1jqc…3mpt RWNJ here – what makes you think conservatives care if you call it X or Twitter?

2024-04-18 13:40:11

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 But how about something that doesn't involve ethnically cleansing the victims.

2024-03-25 19:34:15

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, this gets at a big part of the problem, I think; failure to apply Bayes correctly.

2024-03-25 16:31:18

Science journalism never fails to disappoint.
https://www.vox.com/culture/24108638/3-body-problem-science-physics-theory-explained-how-real-is-it This is one of those "the real science behind the show" things, and it says faster-than-light communication is possible through quantum entanglement. :facepalm: The author completely misses the point of the expert quote cited. #Ansible

2024-03-22 18:08:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub147l…vyrc Maybe a happy middle ground is higher deductibles. A lot of people don't need insurance for things that cost a couple hundred, they need insurance for something that costs thousands.
In this way, a lot of people would shop around for a lot of medical purchases, but you'd avoid financial ruin for a huge thing.

2024-02-14 23:31:52

- reply

@npub1c02…6a5v @npub1kpw…xzz4 oh is this the vaccine thing

2024-02-14 18:23:56

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Having had experience in large organizations, it feels like you have a lot of confidence that certain things happen when they just don't. In engineering, we have tons of low-level company-wide procedures that I wouldn't imagine Sundar knows anything about, for example. You think someone like that reviews everything we do? I can tell you they do not.
In this particular example, I can see some mid-managers moving around between his companies and copying processes. I can easily see this kind of low-level detail, especially one you wanted to keep quiet, from being discussed in meetings with more sr. management. Probably happens all the time.
I do have a bias toward not assuming someone is racist without decent evidence, I guess; like I said #rorschachtest
What's the other mountain? I just claimed it was a mountain of trash with some evidence, do you have any other exceptions in mind? (you said earlier to someone else you weren't interested in this argument, so understood if you'd rather not.)

2024-02-14 18:08:40

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ey8…tjld @npub1a9s…geyc @npub16mz…uzxf Oh so that's it? ok, well, I addressed that already; I guess agree to disagree #rorschachtest

2024-02-14 17:00:28

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1f8e…zu5u "elderly man with a poor memory" isn't hostile?

2024-02-14 16:56:00

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1f8e…zu5u He's a Trump appointee. (Remember Rod Rosenstein? It's not like presidents have absolute control over the DOJ. Which is good, I guess.)

2024-02-10 23:44:33

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1304…9dze @npub1gwr…t50g I wonder if people unwittingly join instances like that or mstdn.social, get bored by the weird performative echo chamber, then write off Mastodon and go back to Twitter or whatever.

2024-01-25 17:02:14

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, I think that's what I mean.
Heh, it certainly isn't antiracist given Kendi's definition of that term...
It's worth keeping in mind that Mr. Racist represents about, say, 3% of the US (and The West in general). Mr. Woke is probably more like 10x that. Point being it almost isn't worth even talking to or about the people behind Mr. Racist: we all know they're the lunatic fringe: their harmful policy preferences don't matter, because they have no power (good to stay vigilent, though...). But the people represented by Mr. Woke have actual power; what if their illiberal policy preferences are harmful? That is an actual risk.

2024-01-25 15:54:20

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 One annoying thing about Biden is that even though he has this grotesque put-all-black-people-in-prison resume, when he goes to pick a VP he picks.... Harris. Just wat.

2024-01-25 15:27:53

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I'd say it's mostly anti-woke. It isn't trying to be anti-racist; the entire point it is making takes it as a given that racism is awful, it doesn't feel the need to make that argument.

2024-01-22 00:44:34

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 is that a different cops-kick-guy-out-of-ambulance story?

2024-01-22 00:44:10

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2024/01/17/cops-kick-dying-man-out-of-ambulance/ "Eventually they take him to the hospital. He died a couple of weeks later."

2024-01-22 00:40:42

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 He died weeks later in the hospital?

2024-01-15 19:01:04

- reply

@npub1axm…dsle @npub1kpw…xzz4 $ man ls

2023-12-03 20:03:52

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 In a recent episode of Fargo, someone fired a gun a few times right by someone's ear. Shortly afterward, it showed blood coming out of his ear; I'm not 100% sure how realistic that is but I appreciated the effort.

2023-11-27 19:39:21

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “free speech instances where hatespeech is the norm” yeah this is what I was getting at by saying “non-nazi Mastodon”. There are certainly plenty of instances like that.
And a certain population of non-hate righty instances/users/content, of course.
But if you browse like mastodon.com/explore unlogged-in or whatever, I feel like it definitely has a id-left tilt, at least relative to US’ overall political distribution. Just a guess, I suspect maybe you don’t see this usually because (a) don’t browse there and (b) are blocked by lots of them by this point anyway 😂

2023-11-27 19:13:32

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Blocked here on non-nazi Mastodon? If so, two theories:
I would think you run into very few righties. For various historical reasons, culturally this place is dominated, politically, by the identarian left. One of my least favorite things about the id-left is they sorta don't tolerate dissent. In US politics it's probably the most significant anti-free-speech group. (speech is violence, etc, etc)
Second: we righties here on Mastodon can't really afford to block anyone, we're getting blocked so much that if we did we'd have nothing in our feeds.

2023-11-27 04:44:07

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I don't always agree with you, but sometimes you say it perfectly. 😂
I feel like the fraud trial has more of a leg to stand on. We'll see, I guess.

2023-11-27 04:25:24

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I've been wondering this also – he said things like "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." in the speech right before. To people who think everything Trump does is axiomatically evil, this is an obvious smoking gun. But, of course, that is embarrassingly absurd: lots of politicians regularly use metaphors like that in their rhetoric.
From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he didn't want any violence or do anything to try to make that happen. He just wanted a protest outside the Capitol building: "we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give... them (republican senators) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." and "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I don't think you're going to get anyone to point to anything better than that.
If he was trying some kind of violent takeover on 1/6, there would have been someone there with something a bit more potent than zip ties.

2023-11-12 00:55:10

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 how do you chose between dvorak, colemak, hands down, etc?

2023-11-09 03:01:20

- reply

@npub1wcu…9j6s @npub1alm…57vz How clear is it that the phrase "river to the sea" necessarily implies a desire for ethnic cleansing?
It feels like Tlaib kind of made it clear she wasn't calling for that, but was instead pushing for a 1-state/everyone-gets-one-vote kind of scheme.
Surely the belief that a single state there with proper democratic voting rights isn't inherently an evil opinion to hold.
Personally, I suspect that proposal has a good chance of ending in disaster, and that a 2-state solution would be much better. I also disagree with Tlaib's take on what the IDF is doing, and let's be honest pretty much everything Tlaib does or says, but still. I found myself similarly defending Ilhan Omar when she was criticized for talking about money in politics a few years ago. I mean, I disagree with her point (and pretty much everything she says generally) but it has to be ok to talk about money in politics.
Maybe US rhetorical standards make it too easy for phrases to be considered "problematic", leading to nonsense like this.

2023-11-08 06:27:10

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I'd encourage you to be a little more flexible about what form an argument takes. Yes: I'm not doing a comprehensive take-down of your post with every post I write. That's ok, right? (There's a few reasons why I might not be doing that, not least of which is that we are basically just repeating ourselves over and over here in this thread. Memories was like the main *new* thing I noticed in your reply.) Or... do you want me to address something specifically?
I'm just trying to make a point about how the way you are arguing about fetuses isn't really consistent with how most people think about the idea of "killing is wrong". In this case, for example, nobody really thinks "killing is wrong" (or "murder should be illegal" or whatever) *because* the victim has *memories*. Not even "memories in combination with a list of other qualities".

2023-11-08 06:09:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub10nr…ge2c "memories" – Whoa if we knew the coma guy was going to have total amnesia then would it be ok to murder him?

2023-11-08 06:08:43

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8 I picked it pretty much randomly; they're all pretty easy to attack, I think.
We don't murder people who can't think, temporarily, for some reason. (Coma again, I guess?) etc.

2023-11-08 06:07:15

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub10nr…ge2c "their brain may only be temporarily not functioning" And fetuses just temporarily don't have brains?
"A person without a brain is never waking up in their current state" Unless their brain starts growing. Like what happens usually with a fetus.
etc...

2023-11-08 06:03:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub10nr…ge2c Hmm, I thought it was useful, since it's an example of someone without a currently-functioning brain that we don't kill.
But maybe I'm not understanding exactly why not having neurons is significant for you.

2023-11-08 06:00:47

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8
"consciousness absolutely doesnt exist" so sort of a "better safe than sorry" approach?
But that's still my point: even if we know consciousness doesn't exist at N weeks, that doesn't matter – using consciousness for this question is ghastly.

2023-11-08 05:56:33

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8 "thought" and "consciousness" are things on a list of differences between a 5 week fetus and an adult. This list also includes things like "size" and "experiences" and "independence" – (some people use those instead).
All the things on this list generally end up being problematic to use in this way.
For example: "consciousness" – someone who is asleep or in a coma doesn't have that, but we would consider killing someone in those states to be murder. And so on.

2023-11-08 05:53:09

- reply

@npub10nr…ge2c – instead, focus on whether active agreement/disagreement is interesting and relevant (it isn't) – e.g. suppose you're in a coma and can't agree or disagree to anything. Is killing you at that point murder? What if you're likely to wake up soon?
@npub1kpw…xzz4

2023-11-07 16:08:19

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1cgy…sktx I think you know what I mean. 😂 You’re assuming people you disagree with are doing what they do with the worst possible motives, rather than for the reason they say they’re doing it. You’re doing this for no discernible reason. It’s weird.
Here’s one of several problems with it: I don’t know, maybe Dash thinks corporal punishment is a responsible way to raise kids, and here maybe you have a chance to convince someone! But instead, you blow the opportunity: you come off like an unhinged person, certainly unlikely to convince anyone who knows very well that they personally use corporal punishment because they honestly believe it is the best way to keep their kid from running with scissors.

2023-11-07 15:57:51

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1cgy…sktx I think coming up with silly caricatures of people you disagree with rarely ends up being useful.

2023-10-22 20:28:42

- reply

@npub1xtr…2zj8 More infrastructure spending was one of Trump's main things in the '16 campaign. This cartoon has a really odd understanding of "Trumpism".

2023-10-22 20:20:13

- reply

@npub1a39…5svx @npub1cus…6789 “Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general.” —Rip

2023-10-22 20:16:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 It's almost like nobody knows what Mizrahi Jews are. But we've tried (and failed) to discuss this already.😂

2023-10-22 20:12:11

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub10nf…0km0 @npub1agt…hzw8 Soviet central planning was weirdly incompetent, at least at times. Like, I don't think central planning could ever be anywhere near as good as laissez-faire, but I wouldn't have guessed they'd make the kinds of mistakes they did.

2023-10-18 15:28:44

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 IANAL but I think this leads to contradictions. 😂

2023-10-15 00:50:32

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I’d mentioned that violence upthread; again not really the problem.

2023-10-15 00:46:38

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Nah, I don’t think that’s the problem, no worries.

2023-10-15 00:31:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1g2e…mtng You said it matters! I certainly wasn't assuming otherwise.

2023-10-15 00:30:03

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “You cant have this discussion without talking about the area pre-1920, 1920-1947 and 1947 to present…” ok, but we also can’t have the discussion if any statement or question about one era is interpreted to be about the other. 😂

2023-10-15 00:15:24

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1g2e…mtng it is nice to be privileged enough where we can take political positions that don't benefit us personally!

2023-10-15 00:14:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded” Oh my I am so confused :) You appear to be going back and forth between making it clear that we’re talking about pre-1947 then making it clear that we’re talking about after the state is founded.
I think at this point I pretty much have no idea what you’re saying.
“Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel…” – see here you’re talking about alleged problematic actions by Israel today, and I feel like I’ve made it pretty clear I’m not talking about that (My like whole point is what you say here: “this isnt a matter of history”). We’re just talking past each other.
Well, thanks for trying 😂 All the best, and praying for peace and justice.

2023-10-14 23:46:01

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1g2e…mtng it is nice to be privileged enough where you can take political positions that don't benefit you personally.

2023-10-14 23:37:14

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4
“Words are important, you tried to claim they were just immigrants at the get go…”
Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I’m glad that came across clearly. ;)
“you can always just ask if they confuse you.”
I did, many times. I do feel like you aren’t reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I’d appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I’ll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
“I mean they literally showed up with weapons and killed and shot the other side to take the land…”
Ok again I don’t know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
“In fact to become an Israel citizen you are required to pick up a weapon and shoot the other side by israel law.”
Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel’s conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we’re discussing? Or at least I think they are haha…)
The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
“Well maybe thats why you shouldnt invade another country and take their land by force that you havent had any right to in over 2000+ years…”
Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I’m wondering if, in a sense, this is all their “fault”: if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
Ok I feel like we disagree about two main things:
(1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. “invasion”) to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
(2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you’re talking about, like “invasion-by-good-guys”, reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don’t think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
I suspect we agree on a lot of things (I’m sure I’m mostly ignorant of the details around these issues, though, so I’ll try not to say too much):
Israel needs to do a better job with due process kinds of things: bulldozing houses, unjustly condemning property, and so on. Israel needs to find less violent ways of enforcing its borders against protesters. (This is hard though!) Israel needs to do a better job protecting Palestinians from crimes by Jewish settlers. Any fight against Hamas right now needs to be done with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties. Israel and Egypt probably need to operate in better faith about letting non-military trade good into Gaza. (The whole open-air prison thing.) Israel should probably find ways to unoccupy the West Bank etc now-ish. US aid should probably be contingent on those things.
(I think these there are the kind of thing you’re getting at with a lot of your rhetoric about Israeli abuse of Palestine in modern times, yes?)

2023-10-14 21:23:51

- reply

@npub1g33…0uqt @npub1kpw…xzz4 there are many in the US – almost as many as Israel. Certainly not to toot our horn, though, we turned away thousands of refugees from the Nazis etc, to our great shame.

2023-10-14 20:51:12

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 oh I see! In your earlier post you said “Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN,”, so pretty clearly 1947. (there was no UN at the time of Balfour Declaration) So I thought that’s what you meant by the numbers you gave.
Aside: You know, I’m having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something “illegal immigration” when you really mean “The British shouldn’t have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all”. I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn’t have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you’re saying the Ottomans weren’t enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It’s exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
OK so you really are all in on this “refugee immigration” == “invasion” rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
“they had to get those people out” – so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It’s like the Soviet relocations – I guess you’re thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
You object to this multi-generational refugee immigration under various empires, and as a result you want the solution in 1947 to be to solve it basically with ethnic cleansing. I mean, there’s a lot going on there, but that is disgusting.

2023-10-14 20:01:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4
160k vs. 700k and “Jews made up something like 10%”: Wasn’t the Jewish population like 500k by 1940? Your 160k to 700k sounds more like 1930 numbers? I’m not sure where you got those from, are you talking about a specific region that is much smaller than ex-Mandatory Palestine? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945 – is this a total fabrication by the British??)
When the partition was made, Jews were about 600k, 1/3 of the population. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that number went from 160k to 600k in 1947. From everything I can find, this is not true? Instead, 160k->600k was gradual over a generation. (Do you have better sources than I do?
(One of the possible complaints about the partition plan that I alluded to, and possibly one of the main causes of the war, was that the Jewish state has 2/3 the land despite having 1/3 the people.)
It’s true that Jewish immigration skyrocketed after 1948, but that seems neither here nor there wrt. this discussion.
“Yes, the british had no rights to allow anyone to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory” …uh, ok… I’m not trying to justify British colonialism here, not sure what your point is. (FWIW the ottomans before the British didn’t seem to be stopping this immigration either. Are you arguing someone had a moral right to stop it but was prevented from doing so? If so, who?)
“Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. “ Yes, again, as I said, there’s probably much about the partition plan that could have been done better. UN == (steaming bowl of elephant piss). fully agree. Something had to happen, though: there were 1/2 million Jews there and tons of violence. Do you think you could have done better?
“britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed” The UN you mean? OK, but … what should they have done, then? Given Turkey control over everything again, since that is the “country” that existed before the British won WW1? there’s no useful status-quo ante here, Freemo. I’m not sure what you are thinking on this one.
“only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, “ Yeah, I agree it would have been ideal if the Jewish, Arab, (and other) leadership could have hammered this out on their own. Now, Freemo, why do you think that didn’t happen? It certainly wasn’t because the British cared, they were clearly just trying to escape without any more of their troops getting killed.

2023-10-14 19:17:44

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group “ – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here.
“they are illegal immigrants” Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you’re saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?
“defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land.” and “they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it….” No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There’s plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can’t fathom how it is a “literal invasion”.
Then, there was a war, of course, immediately after the partition. (The UN is so useless.) I guess there were foreign fighters in this war – ex-Axis fighters, arabs from outside Palestine, etc. I wouldn’t really call that an “invasion”, though – the main combatants/sides were local to the area.
“please stop pretending they are the victims here” At various times certain Jews were certainly victims! And at other times and places they were the victimizers. Of course; and we both know this, so, again, I don’t understand why you’re saying this.

2023-10-14 18:52:40

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8 @npub1w2r…6msg @npub1lvy…my4r "for the "freedom fighters" to have meetings and gather in secret among civilians"
If they were freedom fighters who cared about the people they claim to be fighting for I think they'd do things a bit differently.

2023-10-14 18:12:42

- reply

@npub1q8n…kct8 @npub1w2r…6msg @npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lvy…my4r I don't think they have much choice but to go after the terrorists at this point. I think it is incumbent on them to do this with minimal collateral damage, though – I'm ignorant about the best way to do that?

2023-10-14 18:10:02

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 They didn’t “come with” weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on. In situ, yes? The immigrants that came were, you know, immigrants. You know this, right? Can you see that the way you’re talking about it makes it sound like all the refugees that came were armed to the teeth and hit the ground shooting or something? Is this some weird definition of “invade” you’re using for rhetorical reasons?
Of course, this doesn’t justify anything they did with those security forces once they built them! That’s an entirely separate issue, and more germane to who is justified doing what this week.
“at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants”
what are you even talking about
“willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views” – I did think that, yes. That’s why I’m engaging with you here. So they all have to stand in an open field where the inevitable result is a few bombs to whipe them out in a matter of a seconds?
No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.

2023-10-14 17:47:22

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8 @npub1w2r…6msg @npub1lvy…my4r Wha? It is absolutely not the case that they have no choice but to have military installations in the same buildings as hospitals/schools/residences. There are "literally" other places they could have them.
You seem to be under the impression that Gaza is completely covered, every square inch, in civilian buildings? This is, *of course*, not the case.

2023-10-14 17:44:32

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lvy…my4r @npub1erh…w6xs @npub1w2r…6msg @npub1l42…mkrl "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.
"illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?
There have been Jews in the area, continuously, for 1000s of years. There has been tension at least since the refugee immigration waves started 100+ years ago. Nebi Musa riots, and so on. People from both groups have committed completely unjustified violence, of course. The situation we are in today is a direct result of those issues building and building, never being resolved.
Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.
"I agree the Hamas commiting attrocities would be a reason to consider stop saying it" That would of course have nothing to do with whether Israel "invaded".

2023-10-14 17:20:57

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lvy…my4r @npub1erh…w6xs @npub1w2r…6msg @npub1l42…mkrl Freemo my guy you gotta stop calling it an "invasion".
Calling refugee immigration an "invasion" is an dickish thing to do. Please stop. It makes you look like those xenophobes in the US who talk about central american immigrant "invasions".
There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)
None of this in the slightest has anything to do with whether Israel is justified in the way they are prosecuting this war against Hamas baby killing terrorists, of course, which is another reason to stop saying it.

2023-10-12 05:59:59

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8
> There is no histoical record of any country named israel before the 40's.
This is trivially false as a factual matter, but even if it were true what is the upshot?
Waves of immigration (not an "invasion", that feels like xenophobes today calling central American refugees to the US an "invasion") and poor governance by the British predictably caused tension and violence. (IIUC most of the violence was directed against Jewish communities in those days, ~100 years ago?) But why does any of that matter wrt. this question? It's not like that history justifies any violence or injustices today, surely.
Her video is an inane response to a claim someone made(?) that Hamas is responsible for <something>? Sure: this violence had been going on for at least 80 years before Hamas was founded, great point Mia, thanks for your helpful history lesson.

2023-10-12 04:15:26

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “To me this is her mocking the very thing her people has been tortured with her whole life.” – right – the raping, torturing, child-kidnapping terrorists the other day brought her this sense of mocking delight.
“overwhelming majority of isralis are people who choose to migrate” ooh ooh please be careful there. A lot of people who moved to Israel over the years were refugees fleeing some pretty bad situations.
“In their eyes that makes them valid targets” This is ghastly, far worse than her other comments. You join the Navy or whatever and suddenly its ok to rape you and post videos of you bleeding out from the rape online because you are or were “active military”? Can you see how this is not actually a valid, or interesting, point? (Did she really say that?? I can’t find it.)
Hamas doesn’t give a shit about the people of Gaza – they do things like kill babies in order to cement their own power at the Palestinians expense, whom they then use as human shields. Khalifa plays right into their game. Who would want to be suckered into amplifying such a foolish murderer-rapist-kidnapper-supporting message like hers?
Lots of other people seem perfectly able to criticize Israel without rejoicing in the bloodshed and terror of the other day: read the last few posts on the subject from @npub1u3t…c6ug for example. FWIW I disagree with almost every post he has ever made, but see how he does it without supporting kidnapping raping baby killers? Without trying to justify it with completely psychopathic arguments about “active military”? It’s really not that hard.

2023-10-12 03:00:47

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Ok, but "if she supported Hamas" ... she almost kinda sorta did? And you didn't quote everything.
The snarky "I can’t believe the Zionist apartheid regime is being brought down by guerrilla fighters in fake Gucci shirts" feels like grave dancing.
"Zionist apartheid regime is being brought down" – i.e. the thing that happened was good. Granted, a stretch.
"the biopics of these moments better reflect that." – here we see a desire to ... something like memorialize the humiliation? There might be a better way to rephrase what I'm saying, but hopefully you see my point.
The next comment you quote about making sure there's good footage of "my people" makes a connection between the raping terrorist child-killers (the videos she had just been talking about) and the people getting out of the bad situation in Gaza – this is a bit of a stretch, admittedly, but I suspect it had something to do with her termination: it's a – sort of if you squint at it just right – argument that abducting children and elderly people, murdering, raping, and posting videos of dragging around women bleeding between their legs because you just raped them are necessary for liberation and justice.
Elsewhere, she called the terrorist rapist child-killing murderers "freedom fighters", which certainly crosses the line for me: I'd kick her off my platform if I had a platform. (She kinda sorta not really walked this back, but didn't.)
(She isn't Palestinian, but that doesn't matter wrt. your point, I think.)

2023-10-04 15:47:09

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 "stop discussion" and also "put that on the table for discussion"?

2023-09-29 02:22:56

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I think the expensive part is getting enough horizontal speed. Taking off at LEO-heights, you avoid air and the need to gain potential energy. This is like a fifth of the fuel or something. But sure: not nothing.

2023-09-28 20:40:04

- reply

@npub1thz…0n4d @npub1kpw…xzz4 In a lot of counties – I mean places that this ruling is directed at – this is not remotely an honest description of what was going on. You could be a world-class expert in firearm usage or whatever and not get a CCW in these places. And the problem was not hoops to jump through to prove your expertise: they just didn't issue.

2023-09-28 20:13:59

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 “130 miles to be at the lower end of LEO and service the ISS.” But it’s whizzing by at 5 miles/sec; most of the work is just getting up to speed, isn’t it?
I guess the higher up you go the better, (less air etc?), but unless your elevator is quite a bit higher than these numbers you don’t really get the main savings of a space elevator.

2023-09-28 19:34:26

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 tl;dr – I don't have anything intelligent to add about maximum heights using rock or other modern material...
How high would it have to be? 100km to "space", but what application does a 100km space elevator have?
I found something saying that 10 miles is the max mountain height, but I think that was taking into account how fast mountain growth processes are vs. erosion, so I don't think it applies to this project: we can probably go quite a bit higher.
I agree it seems like if you go wide enough the rocks can probably support 100km without basically liquefying and squishing outward? I think? But I think the crust will deform a ridiculous amount, so be sure to take that into account. :)

2023-09-27 00:41:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 – "isnt any good way to verify it personally" that's part of it, I think – an unwillingness to believe anything you didn't personally verify. Like, go outside and look at the ground or whatever: it looks flat. So to accept this premise that it is round instead of what it obviously looks like, they'll want to see something *personally*.
At some point, to function at a certain level, so to speak, you need to take some stuff on trust: like things you learned in science class and so on.
Also: I think there's also a personality that wants to find meaning in everything – so like the idea that something happening implies somebody did it by design.
Both of these are maybe related by failure to apply Bayes' theorem. You kind of know this subconsciously: you think something is true with some probability, but then as you see evidence that probability in your mind changes according to the evidence. Basic underpinning of science, right? But you need to have some way of evaluating these probabilities and adjustments. If there's something missing in you that makes it hard for you to do it, then you're going to have the kinds of problems that I'm outlining.
Re. moon landings, you really need to be conspiratorially-minded (or wildly ignorant): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings – if this is a conspiracy, then just wow.

2023-09-21 18:59:19

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1p34…wdy6 @npub187k…ra34 @npub10ey…yx0s @npub1nqz…838y I do not want to weigh in on what counts as “left” or “right”, but just what is this: “(66%) of the GOP beleive abortion should be legal under extenuating circumstances such as a dead fetus” – no! Pretty much absolutely nobody wants to ban whatever surgery is indicated for miscarriages/etc. Yikes!
This reminds me of something. Awhile ago, there was a poorly-worded bill in CA that righties were saying was going to legalize infanticide. When this was pointed out, it was immediately fixed of course to clarify that it didn’t do that. But this didn’t stop some people from continuing to scaremonger about CA democrats wanting to kill children or whatever. That scaremongering is absurd, and a ridiculous thing to do.
Spreading this idea that republicans want to force women to carry dead fetuses is equally asinine. You all should stop doing it.

2023-09-11 19:18:51

- reply

@npub1a4c…t2kf I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about Redacted's null hypothesis. It *sounds* like you're saying it's stupid because it should be obvious that a 16yo today should be nowhere near as good as an elite athlete 50 years ago, even in a sport that grew in significance?
In more than a few sports, high-schoolers today could roll with elite athletes from 40–50 years ago – even sports that were pretty big back then – so that assumption seems like a "wrong to anyone who has contact with the real world" kind of thing.

2023-08-23 19:19:48

- reply

@npub1ezx…74mr @npub17lg…9uux Interesting. In the US both parties are absolutely awful on this particular kind of issue. A few pols in each party would see the problem with OP, I think, but as a whole I suspect they'd both enthusiastically support this proposal.

2023-08-23 16:29:54

- reply

@npub1ezx…74mr @npub17lg…9uux American here: I was under the impression that the UK is always absolutely terrible on these issues, regardless of which party is in power. Are conservatives worse?

2023-08-06 20:24:04

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1p34…wdy6 @npub1ukc…40jn Yeah, I hope it’s clear I see this point. I articulated it myself several messages ago, even. I think my other observation remains, though.

2023-08-06 20:16:40

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1p34…wdy6 @npub1ukc…40jn How does that solve the problem?
IIUC, “the problem” is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily – you saw my next paragraph…) Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?
That’s what I meant by scared away.

2023-08-06 19:01:56

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1p34…wdy6 @npub1ukc…40jn My first reaction to “just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss” is: sounds good to me, problem solved!
I guess there’s an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. But… do we see that much in practice? Megacorps don’t have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.
Maybe what I need to do is a bunch of case studies – how often are problematic monopolies able to do this without government help?

2023-08-06 18:31:09

- reply

@npub1p34…wdy6 @npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ukc…40jn I’d say the same thing about Unions, too, of course: I think workers negotiating as a bloc (price fixing, essentially) would be totally fine if nothing prevented people from undercutting the bloc. I realize this takes the wind out of the sails of Unions, though. I think this is probably what Freemo means by “You wont have strikes”.

2023-08-06 18:17:45

- reply

@npub1p34…wdy6 @npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ukc…40jn Yeah – when we see problematic monopolies, I always wonder: why can’t someone else sneak in and undercut? It seems like more often than not the answer is something like “regulatory capture”.
Do we really need antitrust legislation? Or maybe what we need is just less statism?

2023-08-06 18:10:25

- reply

@npub1jma…0as2 @npub1kpw…xzz4 What is Freemo saying that sounds like arguing "that workers should not be able to control the price point of their work"?

2023-07-27 23:22:28

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1ey8…tjld Yeah, I always wondered why there was so much emphasis recently (like the last 15 years) on wealth disparity in the US rather than quality of life for lowest X% of wealth.

2023-07-20 16:45:30

- reply

@npub189n…satx The article quotes someone as denying that the standards teach that slavery was beneficial. Who's correct?
"Slavery is beneficial" a bizarre claim to make, and a lot of media these days is making bizarre claims like this. Is it true? Would a state or textbook actually teach this in 2023? This is 1920s stuff. It doesn't really pass the smell test, and would be *quite extraordinary* if true. It would be great if we could all be a little more discerning and skeptical about headlines, yes?
I think this is the quote from the standards that the complaints are about: "Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit" (p.6) FWIW: I join in the complaint about this line, to say the least! Some slaves were obviously experts in skilled trades, but come on. But, let's be clear: it doesn't actually say that slavery is, on net, beneficial, and the rest of the standards, I think, quite clearly make the opposite case:
The standards go on to talk about the heroes of abolition (p.7,13), the harsh conditions of slaves particularly in american British colonies (they were especially bad in the colonies compared to the conditions of slaves in the rest of the world! p.10 "overwhelming death rates" etc) How Dred Scott etc impacted free people, also illegal slave trading (p.12) etc, etc, etc.
I don't know I didn't read the whole thing it's like hundreds of pages.
But hopefully these hearings get that line on p.6 fixed.

2023-07-12 17:29:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub14za…5vmz @npub1fc8…2ur4 Can you tell me more about how Florida is not allowing people to tell others that they are gay? I thought "don't say gay" had more to do with education curriculum etc.

2023-07-12 17:24:37

- reply

@npub14za…5vmz @npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1fc8…2ur4 Make sure you understand what Pat means by those phrases, though, Dr. Freemo. 'Banning "Gay"' *of course* doesn't actually mean "banning gay". And so on.

2023-07-05 18:33:14

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1jma…0as2 Oh I assumed "centralized power" meant centralized into the hands of the state. I see your point.

2023-07-05 17:55:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1jma…0as2 Regarding centralized power, I don't think of left–right this way. (I'm in US, FWIW) Here, at least, the "right" party, Republicans, are the party of deregulation and lower taxes – at least that's the brand: I know a lot of times they vote for higher taxes and control, but to the point here it's what they talk about and sell themselves as. I know, we want to think of Trump as "authoritarian" because of his statements about controlling media and so on, but even his administration is known for focusing on deregulation. (Whether they did so successfully is an interesting question, but not the point here.) The "left" party, Democrats, have instead branding about more about sensible government doing sensible things, yes? Regulating where needed and so on.
Of course, we think of right-authoritarians like fascists etc. Worth noting though even those often keep businesses privatized at least (Pinochet, Hitler, etc)
Additionally, as noted here, left-anarchists are anti-statist as well, so clearly correlation between what people talk about as left-right and being statist/anti-statist is not so great.

2023-06-28 17:56:01

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 A fun day at the range?

2023-06-13 01:08:55

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lgk…5rtx the law does mention stripping.

2023-06-13 01:07:49

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lgk…5rtx in fairness, I suspect the Tennessee law was just posturing; isn't that sort of thing already illegal?

2023-06-13 01:00:20

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1lgk…5rtx "The article makes absokutely no mention about strip shows." Not explicitly, that would have ruined the narrative, since most people today are wary of children going to strip shows, of course. But as I spelled out in my comment, the SA article refers to such a law, deceptively, to make its case about moral panics. Sounds like you fell for it, too; you should be angry about that.
"I can only imagine you are trying desperately to form some false association between drag shows (whicb typically do not have nudity) and stripping." Well that isn't very charitable of you. It's actually the SA article that does this. Isn't that ironic?
In even more detail:
* From SA: "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces" links to this article as its source: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161452175/anti-drag-show-bill-tennessee-trans-rights-minor-care-anti-lgbtq-laws
* the Tennessee regulation discussed in that NPR piece is this: https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf which is clearly about strip shows and other performances with "entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest"
* ergo: this law is the one that the SA is describing, deceptively, as "banned drag attire in public spaces". In that way SA is implying that drag shows are necessarily "prurient", which as you hint at is maybe a pretty jacked up thing to do.
Did you stop to ask yourself: is it really illegal in some state(s) to wear opposite-sex clothes? Do you *really* think that is true, that that sort of law could *possibly* get passed and withstand legal muster? Really?
----
I've seen videos of shows that were quite sexual in nature with children present. I have no idea whatsoever if the typical public library "drag queen story hour" event is remotely sexual, I've never been to one; for all I know those videos were a smear.

2023-06-12 16:15:59

- reply

@npub1lgk…5rtx One of the things the article lists in its opening litany is strip shows for children. I predict that opposition to strip shows for children will remain for longer than the video-games-make-you-violent thing.
(This is what "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces." refers to. The SA verbiage is a quite misleading there, I guess the "politics opinion" section of SA maybe doesn't get the typical editorial oversight?)

2023-05-16 00:42:29

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub17pd…pvlw ranking cause of death like that is fuzzy, of course, but I think even so it is hard to do it in a way where covid is 3rd. It's probably at the rate of like 100k/year right now in the US? So not just behind the big 2 (cancer, CVD) but also behind accidents, alzheimers, stroke, etc.

2023-05-16 00:32:41

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1g8p…etx8 Important to note that comparing it to the Flu does *not* mean you are minimizing its impact: the flu is very serious.

2023-05-11 23:11:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1734…wlul @npub1rdx…rum5 thanks😂

2023-05-11 20:26:15

- reply

@npub1734…wlul @npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1rdx…rum5 Sure you can be a good person and still want to live in an echo chamber.
Everyone has different reasons for using their accounts.

2023-05-04 15:45:49

- reply

@npub1yck…ujmw @npub176g…94s6 I don't think anyone is suggesting that surgeons stop wearing masks.

2023-04-22 03:17:54

- reply

#[0]
I don't know; maybe?
See these when you're logged out:
https://mastodon.online/explore
https://freeatlantis.com/explore
It says "These posts from this and other servers in the decentralized network are gaining traction on this server right now."
That's what I mean.
https://qoto.org/explore
It's sort of a directory of users. Nice, but totally different.

2023-04-21 17:58:33

- reply

#[0] I feel like the marketplace of algorithms would be nice. #[1]'s "Protocols, Not Platforms" paper https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech outlines this idea with some analysis.
Mastodon seems to have an algorithm, by default; just add /explore to the name of the server. (or click on # explore) But qoto has this disabled for reasons I can only guess at. AFAICT this algorithm is basically boost count?

2023-04-16 01:03:33

- reply

#[0] paywalls: How confident are we that RT is being boosted, and not just "not squelched anymore"?