Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#91

Post by ethbr1 »

belval wrote: post #77
bee_rider wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy has absolutely nailed the nerdy-but-accessible vibe, no surprise his posts are recurring first-pagers.

I wish we had a Bret Devereaux for more topics, but then I might never get things done.

It seems like there's a ridiculous amount of time to sink into a single blog post.

So you're probably looking at mostly historians to be able to do something like what Devereaux puts out. The closest I could think of would be:

   Derek Lowe
   Neil deGrasse Tyson (when not playing for camera)
   Adam Savage
   Nigel Braun (NileRed)
   Salman Khan
   Dianna Cowern (Physics Girl)
   Grant Sanderson (3Blue1Brown)

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#92

Post by edgarvaldes »

Jensson wrote: post #65
Rebelgecko wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people find it humorous because it's an unexpected instance of sexual dimorphism. Like a "Men are from Mars [not Ares]" kind of thing.

Since when is making fun of sexual dimorphism a thing? I thought we stopped doing that. Like, would it be funny if men asked women how often they think about celebrity relationships and drama? People just think about different things.

The other day I was in a party with my wife and my friends. In some moment, we (all men) were in a corner talking about comics, movies, sports. My wife was sitting nearby, and she could hear us for 30 minutes straight talking about the same topics. At the end of the party, she asked me how were my friends' kids, jobs and family. I had no clue. She laughed at me and said "Typical men. We women always ask for the family, the school, the kids, the life of her friends, you boys talk for hours and know nothing new about your friends".

Is it typical? I don't know.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#93

Post by ethbr1 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #89
ethbr1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His modern stuff is more... eh. E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes" 110% love his Roman-period deep dives though. There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many…

To be fair, it took a while for people to figure out how much MAD was still in play, since before the invasion most punditry thought Russia was bluffing and would never try to invade Kyiv with tanks, so what else had they gotten wrong?

If a shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other too. Aka the "M".

The "Russia is a madman, but we're not" is... difficult to square logically and historically.

Beneath all the political and PR charades, during the Cold War the Soviet Union was generally as terrified of the West pre-emptively nuking them as vice versus.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#94

Post by jffry »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #82
belval wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has the be the funniest trend to come out of Tiktok. My SO point blank asked me how many times I thought about the roman empire and I replied "I don't know, once or twice a week". Little does she know we get a post from acoup every week! Reference (for those out of the loop): https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/09/18/how-ofte...

Maybe with all that sudden interest, we'll get some progress on the "Rome Sweet Rome" movie. For context, and going by my memory, circa 12 years ago somebody on Reddit asked who would win, a bunch of Marines or the army of the Roman Empire; in response, one redditor wrote a short story about Marines being thrown back through time into the Roman era - it became viral (for ~2011 levels of "viral"), and the author ended…

It was indeed August 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome,_Sweet_Rome

If it's been in development hell that long, I don't know how likely it is that it'll ever see the light of day.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#95

Post by lying4fun »

pphysch wrote: post #87
swasheck wrote: post #26

bret devereaux is a great follow on twitter, uh ... X, as well. his thoughts on the ukraine/russia conflict are very interesting to me

I was curious, so I looked. He's out there boosting Timothy Snyder. Oof. I'll pass.

I’m not familiar with Timothy’s persona/work, why did that repel you?

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#96

Post by _whiteCaps_ »

pphysch wrote: post #87
swasheck wrote: post #26

bret devereaux is a great follow on twitter, uh ... X, as well. his thoughts on the ukraine/russia conflict are very interesting to me

I was curious, so I looked. He's out there boosting Timothy Snyder. Oof. I'll pass.

Can you explain further? I see on his Wikipedia page:

"Since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the bombing of its energy infrastructure, Snyder has spoken and written widely on the history of Ukraine and its worldwide importance for democracy, on the disastrous geopolitical effects of the invasion, and on the need for other nations and individuals to stand for the protection of territory belonging to that state."

which seems reasonable to me.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#97

Post by pphysch »

_whiteCaps_ wrote: post #96
pphysch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious, so I looked. He's out there boosting Timothy Snyder. Oof. I'll pass.

Can you explain further? I see on his Wikipedia page: "Since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the bombing of its energy infrastructure, Snyder has spoken and written widely on the history of Ukraine and its worldwide importance for democracy, on the disastrous geopolitical effects of the invasion, and on the need for other nations and individuals to stand for the protection of territory belonging to that state.…

Snyder leans heavily on moralizing and evidence-free psychoanalysis to explain current events.

It's far too much "trust me I'm an established intellectual" and far too little evidence-based reasoning for me. To each their own.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#98

Post by galaxyofdoom »

ethbr1 wrote: post #93
bobthepanda wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it took a while for people to figure out how much MAD was still in play, since before the invasion most punditry thought Russia was bluffing and would never try to invade Kyiv with tanks, so what else had they gotten wrong?

If a shoe fits on one foot, it fits on the other too. Aka the "M". The "Russia is a madman, but we're not" is... difficult to square logically and historically. Beneath all the political and PR charades, during the Cold War the Soviet Union was generally as terrified of the West pre-emptively nuking them as vice versus.

Presently, it is not during the Cold War. The idea that Putin is terrified of nuclear annihilation is ridiculous.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#99

Post by jltsiren »

ethbr1 wrote: post #88
swasheck wrote: post #26

bret devereaux is a great follow on twitter, uh ... X, as well. his thoughts on the ukraine/russia conflict are very interesting to me

His modern stuff is more... eh. E.g. I thought there were a lot of flaws in his early-war "NATO can't supply X, because Russia will threaten nukes" positions, as he completed ignored the obvious opposite "Russia can't escalate, because NATO will threaten nukes" 110% love his Roman-period deep dives though. There's probably a smarter quip than me out there to the effect of "Great people share their brilliance on many…

Wasn't the standard model for how a nuclear war would start basically "if you escalate, the reasonable expectation is that the other side will escalate as well"? If you escalate despite the nukes on the other side, it would be risky to assume that the other side is unwilling to do the same.

If you escalate, you signal your intent to start a nuclear war if the other side does not back down. But if you are willing to do that, you should assume that the other side is equally willing. Otherwise why would they waste money on nuclear weapons if they are not prepared to use them?

Much of the cold war was basically figuring out what you are allowed to do in a proxy war, so that the other side still interprets your actions as a legitimate proxy war rather than escalation.

Re: How to Roman Republic, Part IV: The Senate

#100

Post by [deleted] »

verve_rat wrote: post #81
henrikschroder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but isn't it fascinating how truly interested in the roman republic and emopire we are? If you're in the US, how can you not be? It's everywhere! The fledgling US was desperately in need of authority and gravitas, so they essentially cosplayed as the inheritors of the ideals of Rome, and put that shit everywhere. Why does Washington DC look the way it does? Why are there pillars and obelisks and domes and white mar…

But everyone tries to wear the clothes of Rome. The Russians, the Ottomans, unified Germany all played Roman dress up. Edit: also Catholicism.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN