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

121–126 of 126 posts

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

#121

Post by Rebelgecko »

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.

For at least 4000 years... there's actually an old Sumerian joke about how men and women flatulate differently (IIRC it's not based on physical differences but on cultural expectations for men vs women).

In the time since then you may have stopped thinking about sex/gender differences, but most people haven't.

I personally wouldn't find your proposal funny, but it might be more well received if you asked men vs women a question like "How often do you think about Taylor Swift's relationship with John Meyer?". That would probably get more views on your tiktoks. IMO part of the humor is that women are so surprised that men frequently think about the Roman Empire [and republic], but for the men it's a matter of course.

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

#122

Post by bluGill »

eru wrote: post #106
jltsiren wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

While the Cold War was still raging, Thomas Schelling, of 'Strategy of Conflict' fame, pointed out that while the war stays cold thanks to the 'mutually assured destruction' consensus, it would be an optimal strategy in terms of bang-for-your-buck to pretend to have many more nukes than you actually have. Concretely, since no one ever wants to call your bluff and test your nuclear arsenal, it's natural to expect that…

Spies exist. You never are sure how many the enemy has or what they are leaking - even if you do learn, that is a snapshot in time: tomorrow they may get another spy and then you are back. As such you are risking the enemy learns the nukes don't exist and then the whole thing fails.

We now have treaties to inspect each other's nukes. So unlike other things we have a good idea of what how many exist and are working - or at least a floor on the number (that is either side may decide to risk the treaty with secret nukes elsewhere. Between the potential of the program being discovered and the costs I doubt it, but I must allow this for completeness). As such it is generally believed that Russia's Nukes are in mostly in good shape - those who should know all seem to be acting like they are.

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

#123

Post by bluGill »

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?

Those who had access to classified information did not think Russia was bluffing. They are acting like they think MAD is still in play - while they are not talking and may have other reasons for acting like this, I think it is safe to assume MAD is in play.

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

#124

Post by bluGill »

Jensson wrote: post #79
jmkr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strange comment because not only is academic philosophy built from the Greek tradition, but it is formalized. Maybe one can say it stagnated for centuries but I find it difficult to say that the work in the 20th century is inferior. I wouldn't say that about comparing Hilbert to Pythagoras, and this is not putting down history of knowledge.

Just the awareness of the scientific method makes us far superior to the ancient Greeks. Many still doesn't follow it, but basically no Greek followed it and it really shows in their works. For problems where the scientific method doesn't help however we probably aren't that much better than the ancient Greeks, maybe we are even inferior there.

For things where the scientific process doesn't help we have no objective way to conclude anything. Thus debates about topics like Abortion or Gun control where different rights and belief system exist in conflict with each other. Typically neither side will acknowledge the others position as having any validity, but if you can find someone in a different tradition that supports (or seems to support) your position you will say they are authoritative despite there being no objective fact in the first place.

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

#125

Post by eru »

bluGill wrote: post #122
eru wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the Cold War was still raging, Thomas Schelling, of 'Strategy of Conflict' fame, pointed out that while the war stays cold thanks to the 'mutually assured destruction' consensus, it would be an optimal strategy in terms of bang-for-your-buck to pretend to have many more nukes than you actually have. Concretely, since no one ever wants to call your bluff and test your nuclear arsenal, it's natural to expect that…

Spies exist. You never are sure how many the enemy has or what they are leaking - even if you do learn, that is a snapshot in time: tomorrow they may get another spy and then you are back. As such you are risking the enemy learns the nukes don't exist and then the whole thing fails. We now have treaties to inspect each other's nukes. So unlike other things we have a good idea of what how many exist and are working -…

Official inspections can peek and poke the nukes a bit. But they can't really tell exactly how good the maintenance is. Similarly for a spy.

You are right that wholly non-existent nukes would be harder to fake. But covering up bad maintenance isn't quite so hard.

In your point's favour: Looking at the Russian military budget, they do seem to spend a lot on those nukes. Of course, funds could still be siphoned off. But having a big budget is at least necessary, even if not sufficient.

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

#126

Post by throwawaycities »

thom wrote: post #28
throwawaycities wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one of the great ironies of the meme… Most people self-identifying that they think about the Roman Empire don’t seem to know the difference between the Roman Republic & Roman Empire (much less the period of Kings)…it’s all just the Roman Empire.

Well, the Roman Republic had an empire so you can see where it gets confusing.

I wouldn’t have thought so, but apparently even here on HN people aren’t familiar with the Period of the Kings, the Roman Republic & the Roman Empire. Ancient Rome is all just the Roman Republic.
Post reply on HN