751–760 of 816 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did read it. Your point is effectively irrelevant. It means the same thing. Creating an "urgency chain" is effectively the same thing as justifying behavior. It's like saying "we shouldn't worry about enforcing traffic laws because we need to use our resources to bring war criminals to justice" when the reason where not bringing war criminals to justice isn't for lack of concern, it's just that we have no coercive…
> It's like saying "we shouldn't worry about enforcing traffic laws because we need to use our resources to bring war criminals to justice" It most definitely isn't. At no point did anyone in this discussion say "we shouldn't worry about small time corruption". In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. And then I highlighted it after you essentially accused me of doing so, as you're doing again. > Creating an "urgency…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their relationship to power The word "power" is so ironic in human cultures: It's the people with the guns (and muscles) that have the literal physical power. They could shoot the aristocrats dead if they wanted to. The aristocrats' "power" is make-believe like the rest of their papers and numbers: The various psychological barriers which dissuade the gun-bearers from ever reaching the "want to" part.
Which is why power is much more complex than brute force. Sheer physical or military power is not the be-all and end-all, just a facet of the total picture (and in fact, social creatures that humans are, even just adversarial aspects of power are a subset of power).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their relationship to power The word "power" is so ironic in human cultures: It's the people with the guns (and muscles) that have the literal physical power. They could shoot the aristocrats dead if they wanted to. The aristocrats' "power" is make-believe like the rest of their papers and numbers: The various psychological barriers which dissuade the gun-bearers from ever reaching the "want to" part.
Which is why power is much more complex than brute force. Sheer physical or military power is not the be-all and end-all, just a facet of the total picture (and in fact, social creatures that humans are, even just adversarial aspects of power are a subset of power).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their relationship to power The word "power" is so ironic in human cultures: It's the people with the guns (and muscles) that have the literal physical power. They could shoot the aristocrats dead if they wanted to. The aristocrats' "power" is make-believe like the rest of their papers and numbers: The various psychological barriers which dissuade the gun-bearers from ever reaching the "want to" part.
Reminds me of the riddle[1][2] from Game of Thrones / A Clash of Kings: Lord Varys: Three great men sit in a room: a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies? Tyrion Lannister: Depends on the sellsword. Lord Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods. Tyrion Lannister: He has a sword,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their relationship to power The word "power" is so ironic in human cultures: It's the people with the guns (and muscles) that have the literal physical power. They could shoot the aristocrats dead if they wanted to. The aristocrats' "power" is make-believe like the rest of their papers and numbers: The various psychological barriers which dissuade the gun-bearers from ever reaching the "want to" part.
Power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick. A shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's two takes. either the US are the 'good guys' in which case they should be aiming to reduce the impact on the innocent civilian population and escalate the situation, bring the 'bad guys' to trail, and kill them if necessary. with the ultimate goal of bringing real peace. or the US are the 'bad guys', only out to set the world in a way in which most favors them, and screw the consequences. if the US is really…
“Good guys” vs “bad guys” is a mirage. No one, specially not nation states fit neatly into the labels goo or bad. Every country is firstly motivated by their self interest, dos that make them all bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt they did it for the purpose of crypto bets, that was just a side benefit. They did it because Israel owns our government, and this is the first time we've had a president far enough out of touch with reality to not push back. Age limits (for Congress/Judiciary/Presidency) would be a much more targeted fix. Past ~75 you just don't have enough years left to be at risk of being affected by the things you're impl…
> They did it because Israel owns our government Yeah I don't really see how that is an argument that current corruption isn't too extreme. > Age limits (for Congress/Judiciary/Presidency) would be a much more targeted fix. Would it? There are plenty of corrupt people in office younger than 75, to say nothing of the countless unelected people in close proximity to power. Only 42 out of 535 members of congress are ove…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the riddle[1][2] from Game of Thrones / A Clash of Kings: Lord Varys: Three great men sit in a room: a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies? Tyrion Lannister: Depends on the sellsword. Lord Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods. Tyrion Lannister: He has a sword,…
Obligatory Fuck Season 8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incentivizes him to take on more risk to ensure mission success. When someone bets 32k that a political opponent of the US is going to be kidnapped I think its fair to say some will assume it was placed by an insider.
What exactly would that look like from the position of an individual low rank unit? What would $32k of risk look like on a foreign battle field? I'm struggling to understand this prerogative. What would be far larger source of risk is if they bet _against_ the operation and then personally sabotaged it. That's far more understandable but it's not what happened here. It apparently and sadly needs to be said on Hacker…