Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

251

Joined

2 yr. ago

it’s probably more than 20k. What does it prove though?

See above definition on genocide. If thousands of dead Palestinian civilians (~50% of whom are children) isn't enough to be labeled as genocide then the definition you are using is a bad one.

Judging which bomb is purposefully thrown on civilians is impossible.

Are you saying that when Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, they were not intentionally killing civilians?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/israeli-airstrikes-kill-80-in-palestinian-refugee-camp

How many Palestinian civilians have been killed?

How many bombs have been intentionally dropped on civilians?

in whole or in part

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

In Israel, citizens are equal. Muslims and others have the same rights as Jews.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-rights-watch/

It is an ethnostate, by definition it does not treat people equally.

You also conveniently ignored the fact that they are committing genocide.

Ethnostates are inherently immoral, regardless of which race they are. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race. Nobody should be a 2nd class citizen, apartheid is immoral.

And that's all before counting the ongoing genocide.

Have you been living under a rock?

To be completely fair, if they're in the U.S., the amount of propaganda flying around coupled with the complete lack of history being taught about the issue is more than enough to leave the average person unaware of these genocidal actions.

The difference is, Trump did so for personal political gain. Netanyahu's government is killing thousands of palestinian civilians, which is genocide. Coercing a foreign nation to stop genociding people is a good thing.

"Make Sure You Are Square With Your God Before Trying To Merge This"

Nobody has so far given you a serious answer, so:

Cutting - They only had IIRC bronze, which is not enough on its own to cut through the granite. However using sand to add friction makes it cut significant faster/easier.

Moving miles - Boats are incredibly capable of carrying heavy loads with minimal energy expenditure to move said boat. Using logs and levers also goes far.

Getting to the too of the pyramid, that's a little more of a mystery. But there is evidence they included ramps within the structure as they built the bigger ones as they went. And IIRC the smaller ones had pulley systems going through the center.

It doesn't require fancy tech, just of patience and application of basic physics.

Here is a guy using some of the basic movement techniques in his backyard with multi ton stones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewtm1s02Ih8

Yes, I've seen all of the main series minus some of the latest seasons from the new shows.

If it can be solved through software/programming the item correctly, then it sounds like it isn't an issue of replicator resolution.

I'm not saying it's just a placebo. I think it might be a part of it though.

Statistically speaking, the majority of campaigns are going to fail.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at. Roughly half of all positions are democrat held, the other half republican held. 3rd parties make up such a small percentage of the existing seats, hence the "they don't succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair" statement.

The spoiler effect only matters to losers.

Not really. Take the green party for instance. They definitely don't align with the democrats, but they can at least agree on some things, where as them agreeing with republicans is far, far more rare. So it is in the interest of green voters that green politicians get voted in most, followed by democrat politicians, then republican.

But when they split the vote due to the spoiler effect, it ends up meaning the worst of the worst options gets voted in, a republican. And that should matter to the 3rd party losers.

Third parties didn’t have anything to do with that.

They don't have to. The threat of splitting the vote is more than enough for everyone to vote strategically, which means 3rd parties don't get any votes.

On top of that, it wasn't labeled well at all. It sounds like they did not stat the caffeine content on the dispenser, but even if it did, not everybody has a good reference of how fucking much 390mg is.

when strong third party campaigns force rival parties to cater to the independent vote to get over the 50% hump.

I'm not saying 3rd parties have zero influence, but they just don't succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair. The spoiler effect is far too strong for that to happen.

we absolutely do have factions within the main two parties that have regionalized and polarized constituencies that are fighting for control of the national party apparatuses.

Absolutely. But because of the spoiler effect, the two parties are held together with glue. Reforming our electoral system would weaken that glue, and hopefully fracture them enough to make a difference.

Yeah it absolutely isn't the only factor, but it's one of the biggest ones. I neglected to point out it isn't the only factor.

After FPTP issues, the next biggest one in my mind is the spending rules. I think that all candidates should operate from a "shared pool" of election funds. So if candidate A wants to use 1 million for the election, half of it goes to them, half of it goes to their opponent. No candidate should have a higher spending fund from another. It would drive down campaign spending, make bullshit political ads less frequent, and add a degree of fairness.

That, and there needs to be a full ban on lobbying (read bribery).

As for the few elections in southern states that use run offs, that's not quite what I'm looking for, and those elections aren't in a vacuum. The political power the two parties get from surrounding areas is enough to mean 3rd parties still don't have a chance.

Our viable parties are shit because our electoral system is shit.

The 100 year path of wishful thinking that single person who votes will suddenly change their behavior such that they won't vote strategically hasn't got us anywhere. Our electoral system needs reform. It is inherently biased to make 3rd parties fail every single time. The game is rigged for 2 parties and only 2 parties.

and then just completely ignore that their view is led

You're talking about a view different from mine.

Our current electoral system is inherently biased against 3rd parties. We need to switch to approval/STAR voting to make 3rd parties viable.

I haven't heard that take before, which is actually a decent workaround for the "why can't we replicate living beings?" question.

I doubt it would be detectable though. Because you'd have to be able to tell the difference between replicated molecules, and molecules that were transported, with only differences being individual atoms and subatomic particles. Neither of which I'd think somebody capable of discerning. Maybe it's a bit if a placebo thing?

Or maybe it would be a "pure water has no taste" sort of thing, where replicators make things too pure, to the point where some consider it bland. A real tomato grew in dirt and still has at least some, and the soil effects it's taste, whereas the same isn't true for replicated foods.

There also may be some degree of intentionally making an excuse. Lots of people love gardening, and in a world with effectively infinite, free food, your hobby seems more valuable if you have an excuse that your home grown real food & liquor tastes better.

My point was that the way the economy is portrayed is such that we don’t get to see much of how it actually works, meaning that a lot of our understanding is speculation based on a handful of lines.

For sure, and it is rather frustrating. But it makes sense that they don't outright explain the details, as it would just cause lots of people to complain.

The wildcard here is that we see Federation worlds that seem to still use money, namely the Bolians who are members of the Federation, but the Bank of Bolias is a major financial institution.

It also might be a planet to planet thing. Like, imagine if a ferengi colony world broke off and asked to join the federation? They would undoubtetly keep their currency. It would just be a question of whether or not it is seen as a dealbreaker for the federation. I'd wager it wouldn't be, so long as said ferengi colony keeps to the "every one treated equal, with dignity, and sufficiently provided for" philosophy of the typical federation world.

It seems that replicators are not essential to eliminating money in the Trek universe, although I’m sure they’re a boon to the standards of living.

Yeah, that is a common theme that I've heard as well. If we had replicators in today's world, it would only be for the rich, and even if it came down in cost it would still never be free to get one or operate. The philosophy of society itself has to change to agree to make sure everybody is housed, fed, and cared for sufficiently. Without that step, replicators aren't going to do anything to get us to a post scarcity world.

I doubt it's that big of a difference. If they have the tech to materialize full fledged humanoids regularly, millions of times a day, I'd think they'd also have the tech to make replicated food taste good.

But sure, I can see it being marginally better. But not enough to mean money is still in use.

It might be more of a "tomatoes I grew myself" type of thing for most cases.