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

In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#91

Post by ElProlactin »

fakedang wrote: post #90
ElProlactin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France's actions in Africa were horrendous, but let's also not forget Asia. The Vietnam War was born out of the French Indochina War and France used anticommunist rhetoric to gain US support for its war against the Viet Minh. While it would be unfair to say that America's actions in Vietnam were the fault of the French, there was certainly French encouragement if not outright manipulation.

Somebody here on HN told me once that France is the stupidest colonial power, because even though they had the most powerful army and one of the most powerful navies in Europe for a long time, they haven't been able to utilize them optimally, and have only lost more than they gained in their colonial ventures. I tend to agree. Even now the French can't maintain a cohesive relationship with their client states, which…

Colonial powers are almost always purely extractive and in the case of the European colonial powers, especially the French, they had an inherent belief in their cultural superiority, which was justification for their brutality.

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#92

Post by iririririr »

Lumich wrote: post #60
mdp2021 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it And the reading you adopted is a simplified superstition. The expression 'Tiers Monde' was coined by academician Alfred Sauvy in an article on l'Observateur (14 August 1952), to express that the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class that will demand a better position…

« the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.

it's nice that you trying to get to the bottom of your understanding on this. But let me join mdp2021 and flohofwoe.

The mistake is that the quote you pulled was already showing the historical revisionism that you inherited, but maybe not as explicitly.

it say "the under developed countries, to say it using the style of the UN". So it is already pointed out as a forced and politically loaded term. See how those things start?

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#94

Post by mdp2021 »

Lumich wrote: post #60
mdp2021 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it And the reading you adopted is a simplified superstition. The expression 'Tiers Monde' was coined by academician Alfred Sauvy in an article on l'Observateur (14 August 1952), to express that the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class that will demand a better position…

« the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.

> rather than political

It is certainly political: "the countries non aligned in the "cold war", currently hindered, will demand a political weight". Why have you quoted me omitting «that will demand a better position»? The whole idea from Sauvy cannot prescind from the parallel from the "Tiers Etat": third as in a different thing politically, third like that large class of poor that demand to emerge. Technically, defined as "the non aligned, the other thing", practically, "something with an historic role important in the conflict and about to explode".

In context of these branches: the academician who introduced the concept did not imply any "superiority" of other parts or other lowly characterization. Obviously disadvantages are noted as they are objective - just like we do when we deal with the world with duly detached analysis. None of them can be translated to vile gut understanding. If the academician introduces a concept of "someidea" and beasts misuse it, if you want to discuss the world remain on the "someidea", if you instead want to be an ethologist focus on the misuse.

If some proponent notices a relevance of some phenomenon to the "someidea", those who noted a "Ah, like the beasts intended" commit a grave base failure in the mandate from the guidelines here to responding to the most plausible interpretation and assuming good faith.

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#95

Post by mdp2021 »

elzbardico wrote: post #79

It is almost as if there's a country that since its foundation always find perfectly reasonable to kidnap or murder potential enemies in other jurisdictions, ignoring blatantly the sovereignty even of allied or friendly countries, without any restrictions, or respect for international law.

What is the value in reminding the readers? Is there anybody who does not know at that level?

Avoidable also in view of the following: have you noticed in the past years a surge of indoctrinated that, at every misdeed from some part P immediately note how some other part S championed it? Judge: "Have you committed rape?" Defendant: "What about all the other rapists?". It's not even a bad argument, it's gut diversion - it's for the distraction of animals.

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#96

Post by mdp2021 »

megous wrote: post #14
flohofwoe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both cases remind me of Project Harp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP ). After the project was shut down by the US and Canada, the engineer behind it (Gerald Bull) decided to work for Saddam Hussein to build a "Babylon Cannon" which then caused Mossad to 'intervene' in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull I wonder how many similar but unknown cases there are involving former Soviet scientists a…

"caused" it's all human decisions. especially at institutional level, there's no causing others to act

> it's all human decisions. especially at institutional level, there's no causing others to act

And what is the difference? It seems the same ("A got dangerous, causing B to act" vs "A got dangerous, having B decide to act").

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#97

Post by Lumich »

mdp2021 wrote: post #94
Lumich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

« the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.

> rather than political It is certainly political: "the countries non aligned in the "cold war", currently hindered, will demand a political weight". Why have you quoted me omitting «that will demand a better position»? The whole idea from Sauvy cannot prescind from the parallel from the "Tiers Etat": third as in a different thing politically, third like that large class of poor that demand to emerge. Technically, de…

« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the part where Sauvy fit the notion I grew up with, the only one I was familiar with (and ignored the "superstition" part of your reply).

I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come across him anywhere, and I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before). Now I see that the German Wiki article has Sauvy right at the top. (Is that where you got it from?)

By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 (French Wiki):

Auteur de l'expression [« tiers monde »], [Sauvy] la désavoue à la fin de sa vie : « Que l'on permette au créateur de l'expression tiers-monde, il y a déjà près de quarante ans, de la répudier, tant elle fait oublier la diversité croissante des cas. Englober dans le même terme les pays d'Afrique noire et « les quatre dragons » ne peut mener bien loin. »

J'espère ne plus me faire sévèrement réprimander ici pour avoir commis des « grave base failure in the mandate from the guidelines here ». :)

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#98

Post by fakedang »

ElProlactin wrote: post #91
fakedang wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody here on HN told me once that France is the stupidest colonial power, because even though they had the most powerful army and one of the most powerful navies in Europe for a long time, they haven't been able to utilize them optimally, and have only lost more than they gained in their colonial ventures. I tend to agree. Even now the French can't maintain a cohesive relationship with their client states, which…

Colonial powers are almost always purely extractive and in the case of the European colonial powers, especially the French, they had an inherent belief in their cultural superiority, which was justification for their brutality.

Eh, it depends. Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest (Portugal literally shifted the government to Brazil during Pedro I, while the Spanish were intermarrying and handing out Spanish dukedoms to Native American monarchs).

France was dumb because they barely did any extraction while they exploited the natives.

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#99

Post by mdp2021 »

Lumich wrote: post #97
mdp2021 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rather than political It is certainly political: "the countries non aligned in the "cold war", currently hindered, will demand a political weight". Why have you quoted me omitting «that will demand a better position»? The whole idea from Sauvy cannot prescind from the parallel from the "Tiers Etat": third as in a different thing politically, third like that large class of poor that demand to emerge. Technically, de…

« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the part where Sauvy fit the notion I grew up with, the only one I was familiar with (and ignored the "superstition" part of your reply). I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come acros…

> a third explanation for the term

There is only one, only complex, that can be rephrased at will - and which was the intention of the coiner of the expression.

> I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before) [...] Is that where you got it from?

I know it from Books, the good old traditional way. And not necessarily books in French: it is in the works of Paul Johnson, for example. It was not "independently coined by many" - all authors I have state that Sauvy has coined the term.

> By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989

Surely at some point he may have felt to retract, given that an expression coined to make a point and a good intellectual proposal - "what will be the future and the world role of those that we can now recognize as the non-aligned" - from analytical effort had become a synthetic vulgar twisted label. But the descent into vulgarity was not Sauvy's intention, and certainly there is no intent of attributing "superiority/inferiority" to the parts (as you will have seen from having read the piece on the Observateur).

So again: when somebody mentions Schrödinger's cat or Hegel's cows, you cannot assume that the context be violence or discrimination against animals "as mass interpretation became at some point". You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions especially if dubious, especially if frequentistic. In general; as written, here it is explicitly forbidden.

For the rest, incidentally, I do agree with a tirade against the dire state of civilization in the decadent "western world", especially about the denunciation of «eunuch-like consumerist subservience» (50 years ago a conscious warning and today the token of the dead), but it was uncalled for from the post of flohofwoe.

> [French language]

I hope you are not falling into other assumptions.

Re: In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

#100

Post by ElProlactin »

fakedang wrote: post #98
ElProlactin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colonial powers are almost always purely extractive and in the case of the European colonial powers, especially the French, they had an inherent belief in their cultural superiority, which was justification for their brutality.

Eh, it depends. Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest (Portugal literally shifted the government to Brazil during Pedro I, while the Spanish were intermarrying and handing out Spanish dukedoms to Native American monarchs). France was dumb because they barely did any extraction while they exploited the natives.

> Portugal and Spain were more integrating than the rest...

I'm sorry but your characterization is very strange given the history. Portugal and Spain were just as brutal as the French.

Post reply on HN