so i assume you don't want one of those. i like the idea of a nuc, but in practice i like a laptop or a desktop (or a raspberry pi / arduino) more. ~a
paul: "people now are avoiding having children for fear of a doomed Earth and Greta Thunberg" how many people? ~a
paul: "So you're saying that climate scientists haven't been warning about 'serious' climate change all this time and it's only been a warning that we need to stay below 10 billion+ people?" no, that is not what i'm saying. i'm saying that just because you are still alive, and i am still alive, doesn't mean climate scientists were incorrect. ~a
mig: "do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop?" 100% yes. and i'd be willing to bet on it. ~a
mig: oh you didn't read the constitutional amendment? your question has a big fault: they won't have that choice. having control of the legislature isn't enough to stop the willing ceding of control back to the independent commission. the sunset is written into the constitution, and changing that would require a new constitutional amendment (which would again require, among other things, a new majority vote from the public). ~a
we already saw how quickly the va state constitution can be amended for partisan aims. If there were better guard rails for amending the state constitution I would find the sunset provision somewhat palatable. Given the current climate, its effectively meaningless. - mig
I mean do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop? - mig
a: I have no objections to the sunset provision I simply do not believe democrats will willingly cede control back to the independent commission if they still control the va state gov come 2030. - mig
mig: "non negotiable" so i guess i shouldn't try to negotiate then? "restoring fairness", i agree it's partisan language, but i'd hardly call it "rich". if anything democrats had to somehow point out that this was happening in other states. you didn't appreciate that it sunsets in 2030? i do. 100% i would have voted no if they didn't sunset it like they did. if anything, this just temporarily puts things like they were pre-2020. ~a
I also took great offense to the wording of the proposal. It’s incredibly rich to call this measure “restoring fairness”. I also don’t believe for one second that this measure will be temporary if democrats are in power in va come 2030. - mig
a: i voted no. partisan gerrymandering is something that is non negotiable. - mig
is raw story a reliable source? regardless, i'm surprised you guys aren't at all focused on the obvious downside for the economy these decisions have. (sure democrats love to try really hard to destroy the economy too, but they seem to mostly fail at it if you look at the numbers?) ~a
mig: "does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all?" culpability for a lack of a peace deal falls on both sides. of course. but, i mean . . . you have to admit . . . the language we get from the whitehouse has been, inconsistent? "inconsistent" is as generous as i can get. you don't want inconsistency if you want a peace deal. if you want a peace deal that is mutually beneficial. ~a
mig: oh, where did you come down on that? i'm pretty on the fence, but i did end up voting "yes" in the end, and i hope that yes ends up winning. but i do see both sides of this issue, and had trouble even making up my mind on which way i would vote. ~a
a: does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all? - mig
a: you’ll be happy to know this redistricting issue has riled me up enough to go actually vote today. - mig
paul: yes they're both bad. agreed. any thoughts on how this ends? it seems like every time we get to the possibility of an end, trump seems immediately fuck it all up. ending the 2015 iran deal also seems the quintessential and expected trump-move. ~a
a: Does that make sense? Like civilian targeting is worse, but starting the war is bigger? Either way, they're both bad. Can we agree on that? -Paul
a: But just bombing a sovereign nation unprovoked? That's also really bad. I guess per Capita the civilian hitting is worse but overall the unjustified nature of the war is the bigger issue. -Paul
a: Hmmm.... I'm honestly not sure if I agree or not. Obviously intentionally targeting civilian targets (not just accepting some civilian casualties while hitting military targets) is bad. -Paul
federal reserve: without tariffs, inflation would have dropped to pre-pandemic levels during 2025 (reason) ~a
paul: if you agree, it doesn't matter that this war is unjustified? iow, it's actually not the bigger issue? ~a
paul: if you agree, AND there are intentional hits of a civilian targets in this war, then it actually matters not whether the war is justified or not? i don't think the minab school was intentional, but i do think the karaj b1 bridge (civilian target + double tap strike) was intentional (8 dead 95 injured, all civilian). ~a
paul: i'm pretty sure this is how i see it: intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war (i dunno ww2?) is worse than accidentally hitting a civilian during an unjustified war (iran). ~a
paul: ok, cool thanks for replying! i'd like to get into a bit more nuance on this part: you said "accidentally or intentionally". what if we separated them out into two concepts? would intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war be better or worse than accidentally hitting a civilian target during an unjustified war? ~a
a: Does it make it worse that we are (accidentally or intentionally) hitting civilian targets? Sure. But I think the bigger issue and initial issue is starting the war in the first place. -Paul
a: Nah, you got it. That's the one I was thinking of. I don't think we disagree much on the generalities, just a different focus on specifics. This war is a damned tragedy. I blame the fact that it's completely unjustified with no clear goals. -Paul
paul: if you don't know how ethnic cleansing is relevant, maybe we should discuss what israel is doing in gaza. and what israeal is doing in lebanon? ~a
paul: it's officially called distinction (which is really fucking confusing because now we're really just talking about the "distinction distinction"). proportionality will also probably come up. (i mention it because they are both considered war crimes. and the US and isreal are both probably breaking both distinction and proportionality) ~a
paul: it is not xkcd. although, i understand there might be an xkcd i'm forgetting about. more importantly though: this is * not * the distinction i was trying to make. you're making the distinction between enemy soldiers vs soldiers we support. i'm making the distinction between soldiers and civilians. gauld mentions nothing about civilians, soldiers, or war crimes. ~a
a: Although I'm not sure I get the ethnic cleansing implication. Yeah, most of the victims are Iranian but that's kind of because the country is largely made up of Iranians. -Paul
a: One could make the pretty strong argument that given that basically no justification was provided for this war at all the entire operation is one giant war crime. We're basically bombing a country relentlessly until they fully surrender for... reasons? -Paul
a: It wasn't intended to be a blow off, just a slightly cynical take on an answer. Isn't there an XKCD showing two kingdoms on opposite sides of a river where one's army is labeled "our brave defenders" and the other is "their evil barbarians" or something? -Paul
of all the times to get the blow off, i feel like this isn't one of them. ~a
i get the blow off? ~a
a: "war crime" is something the other side does that we don't like. "ethnic cleansing" is when your tribal group is being attacked. -Paul
can someone define "war crime" or "ethnic cleansing" for me? i feel it might become relevant this week. ~a
at his easter sunday address this morning, the president said, "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah," ~a
a: So I agree it's an explanation and not an excuse. I think if this was a justified war it would be understandable that things like that happen (still obviously utterly tragic), but given the circumstances around this war it's even worse. -Paul
a: Yeah. It's a war (despite what the administration might try to say) and unfortunately innocents die during wars. There's collateral damage. But this obviously wouldn't be happening if we didn't completely blunder into this war of choice. -Paul
paul: that's exactly right it's an explanation, but it is not an excuse. "our government sucks, and it seems to be mostly one guys fault, but also somehow the fault of the people who enable him" is another wording of that explanation. ~a
a: Is "old data" a good excuse? Not really, but part of saying it's the "most reasonable explanation" is that I can't think of a better one. Sounds like you can't either? -Paul
a: "the school isn't old?" I assume you mean it isn't new? Wasn't the school built right next to some missile launcher or something, though? I agree using 10+ year old data isn't ideal but I've seen far worse with the government (have you seen the treasury site?) -Paul
paul: i'll also throw this one on top: what has trump said about this before and since? that people die in war? ~a
paul: (3 continued) the dia (who is responsible for old and bad intelligence) and the state department have also seen huge cuts in early 2025. "what do you think?" i don't know. but the main story doesn't make any sense. do i think trump intentionally killed 100-200 girls? no. no i do not. but he sure as hell is directly responsible (see #1, #2, and #3 here). ~a
paul: 3. *why* do they have old data? you cant argue for firing all "mid-level bureaucrats" and putting in your people (proj 2025) then complain that the mid-level bureaucrats didnt do their jobs. i mean you can, but you should not. "cia plans to cut more than 1000 staff positions through attrition over the next few years as the trump administration shrinks the federal government, according to officials briefed on the plans." (early 2025) ~a
paul: 2. was there anything nearby? was there a medical clinic + pharmacy nearby? even if you weren't killing 100-200 girls, you were still going to take out anybody using the medical clinic or pharmacy, right? i know the death toll includes non-girls. i haven't confirmed that people died in the clinic or pharmacy: but the main point is that before the strike you should have known / knew the nearby medical clinic + pharmacy exist. ~a
paul: "That seems like the most reasonable explanation." does it? would it matter to you if 'old intelligence' didn't even track? like, it is a reasonable explanation, of course, until you start asking follow ups. 1. the school isn't old? 2016 is when they walled off that area and started using it as a school. so "old", means, what? 10+ year old data? that seems to be a weird amount of time to indiscriminately bombing an area. ~a
a: "i believe the more recent attacks he made in iran are to change the story away from the hundreds of children he killed." I'm not sure which attacks in particular you are referring to but it seems weird to distract from an attack on Iran with.... another attack on Iran. -Paul
a: "does he still think the attack was made by iran." I have no idea what he thinks. "do you think the attack on the school was because of old intelligence?" That seems like the most reasonable explanation. What do you think? -Paul
paul: what's more I'm sure you can guess that trump claimed the attack was made by iran. does he still think the attack was made by iran. do you think the attack on the school was because of old intelligence? i feel like if so, there's some interesting follow up questions there. i believe the more recent attacks he made in iran are to change the story away from the hundreds of children he killed. ~a
a: I'm positive there wouldn't have been an admission of guilt had it not made news. -Paul
a: I wouldn't say I was surprised it was a US strike (seemed like there were really only two possibilities after all... maybe three if you count an Israeli strike as different). I did think there was a chance it was an accident from the other side. -Paul
a: My nuc cost something closer to $100. We didn't talk about it much during SC2, actually. I also like the idea of a nuc but am struggling with what it can do that my raspberry pi (I've got two) or desktop/laptop/Chromebook can't. -Paul
paul: "Sounds like it was likely a US strike which hit the Iranian school" this does not surprise me. (i feel the dow should probably have admitted fault sooner. it now reads to me like they only admitted fault after it was obvious they were guilty. or worse: considered a cover up) ~a
paul: sorry i missed sc2 this week, i think you probably discussed this a bunch based on discord. i don't have much insight, sadly. i mostly use a standard desktop (high end 10 years ago) and a standard laptop (high end 2 years ago). at work we use a nuc-sized device that costs 50k+ so i assume you don't want one of those. i like the idea of a nuc, but in practice i like a laptop or a desktop (or a raspberry pi / arduino) more. ~a
paul: "people now are avoiding having children for fear of a doomed Earth and Greta Thunberg" how many people? ~a
paul: "So you're saying that climate scientists haven't been warning about 'serious' climate change all this time and it's only been a warning that we need to stay below 10 billion+ people?" no, that is not what i'm saying. i'm saying that just because you are still alive, and i am still alive, doesn't mean climate scientists were incorrect. ~a
so i assume you don't want one of those. i like the idea of a nuc, but in practice i like a laptop or a desktop (or a raspberry pi / arduino) more. ~a
paul: "people now are avoiding having children for fear of a doomed Earth and Greta Thunberg" how many people? ~a
paul: "So you're saying that climate scientists haven't been warning about 'serious' climate change all this time and it's only been a warning that we need to stay below 10 billion+ people?" no, that is not what i'm saying. i'm saying that just because you are still alive, and i am still alive, doesn't mean climate scientists were incorrect. ~a