PrinceWith999Enemies @ PrinceWith999Enemies @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

606

Joined

2 yr. ago

I might be misremembering - with the number of pending charges against TFG approaching triple digits, it can be difficult to keep them straight - but didn’t they already pull some happy horseshit about not needing attorneys to get clearances before? Something about Trump having TS-SCI and Q nuclear docs in a cardboard box in a bathroom pretty much anyone including foreign nationals could access, then his lawyers being told they’d need to pass the background checks to examine them. I thought I remembered them arguing they didn’t need to be cleared and being shot down.

Am I misremembering, or is this a Hail Mary or a completely different case? There’s just too many felonies for me to keep track of.

Great job in Iowa, though. Those are the real patriots.

First of all, this has been the most interesting and constructive response I have ever gotten on social media, bar none. Thank you for taking the time - I really appreciate it.

The idea I am applying is the fitness landscape. I know you know what I mean by that, but for anyone else who is happy to follow along a nerdy discussion on a post that has about three comments and seven upvotes, biology pictures systems as climbing up hills on a landscape that’s filled with mountains and valleys. It’s the same idea that physicists use to demonstrate minimizing energy by having marbles rolling downhill, except with the opposite direction. Higher means more fit, which in the simplest possible terms means having more offspring.

One question that we try to address is by what mechanism do organisms cross valleys. In one sense, we know that they can’t really be becoming “less fit” in a way that would drive them to extinction based on some future plan - the math doesn’t work like that. On the other hand, we can acknowledge that there’s a significant cost associated with developing some adaptations. The costs do have to be paid in real time, but on the other hand selection is a fickle process that has a significant noise component.

Two of the developments that have interested me are eusociality (eg ants and bees as well as pro-social behaviors in general) and the development of technological intelligence. Fortunately for me, these have come together in humans. Here’s the issue: baby humans are useless. They’re food, at best. Their bobble heads are ridiculously large, and it takes them years to even learn how to walk, much less do anything socially useful.

This creates a significant valley around what we currently believe to be a very high fitness peak. The landscape we’re talking about here is a naive construct, though, and doesn’t perfectly describe what actually constitutes fitness for humans. Instead, we need to factor in the co-evolution of social structures. There is a strong argument that the size and capacity of the human brain was in no small part developed as part of an arms race in sociological development between cooperation and exploitation.

In any case, we’ve seen both sociality and eusociality evolve independently multiple times. Still, we haven’t seen human levels of social learning. We see social learning in some mammals as well as a surprising (but still tiny) number of other species. Being a theorist, I like to fold these examples together with phenomena like DNA exchanges and so on, but at the bottom of the technological intelligence argument it’s still n=1. And the compelling piece, for me, is that technological intelligence led to the complete domination of the planetary ecosystem. If this had come about earlier, it would have. This signifies, to me, that the valley surrounding the very high peak that is technological intelligence is very deep indeed and requires the coevolution of a high degree of socialization, and quite possibly excludes organisms that due to size (like insects) or environment (like octopuses) can’t do things like carry a burning branch.

It’s still an open question, of course, but for me the fundamental physics (for want of a better term capturing the mathematics of these systems) make me absolutely reject the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence being behind things like UFO sightings. The point made in the video is that while we can calculate the number of stars or planets in the galaxy or the universe, we literally have no idea about the other, equally important component, which is the probability of life (or intelligent life) existing on another planet. If the number of planets is 10^{15 but the probability of technological intelligence evolving is 10}50, it’s entirely trivial to say that we are all that there is when it comes to the universe contemplating itself.

Theoretical biologist here. I haven’t looked this person up, but from the talk I’m going to assume he’s teaching an astronomy-related course. He does mention biology but I might be able to go into more detail.

I am also very skeptical about intelligent life existing in the universe. I’m certainly not saying it’s been proven false - of course it hasn’t - but from some of these responses I can’t tell if anyone has actually watched the video. I ran through it at 2x speed - it’s not technical at all - and I highly suggest watching it like that if you’re feeling like the title misrepresents factual observations. I’m not going to address the questions about astronomy, because I think the lecture covers those adequately.

First, let me say that I think it is entirely plausible that something that we could in theory come to recognize as life exists elsewhere. Please note that I am choosing my words very carefully. There is a discipline called exobiology that tries to understand what life actually is, what chemistries are compatible with the complexities we associate with living processes, and how evolutionary dynamics might affect them over time. We think that there needs to be an informational aspect as well as a physical-physiological aspect. The former provides the basis for replication and evolution, while the latter maintains integrity and what Schrödinger called “negative entropy” associated with living systems. It doesn’t have to be DNA, it doesn’t have to be in chromosomes. It will probably have to have something like a cell. It will probably need water. Other than that, I think I’m pretty open to ideas.

Complex life, and in particular life exhibiting technological intelligence (which is how most of us think of intelligent life) is a much higher hurdle. Earth - our single example - has been fairly teeming with life for around 3.5 billion years, give or take. It is evolutionarily highly dynamic (for whatever that means when your sample size is 1) with both mutation and recombination playing roles in genetic and phenotypic diversity. The sheer diversity of factors - transcription, regulation, editing, and so on all provide targets for evolution. Complexity builds upon complexity.

And, given all of that, there has been exactly one single line that has led to technological intelligence. It evolved once. And the thing of it is that, evolutionarily, it’s a really good idea - so much as to allow humans to drive themselves and wide swaths of the entire global ecosystem to the border of extinction. When good ideas occur, they tend to evolve early and often. Eyes are a great example. It’s a very good idea to be able to perceive light, and at my last count I believe eyes have evolved independently around 24 times.

If intelligence evolved once - and we’re not talking about dolphins or dogs here - despite the fact that it allowed humans to almost instantly become the apex species on the planet - that tells us it’s very hard to discover from an evolutionary point of view.

Long story (not so) short, I think it’s unlikely that humans will ever encounter an extraterrestrial technological intelligence. I think that, if we should survive the next century or two, we could likely find the equivalent of bacterial mats. This would be hugely exciting for biologists and would (in a very very literal sense) change life as we know it. We’re just not going to find big headed bug eyed aliens in flying saucers or Vulcans.

The crime is the clearly weighted d20 he’s going to try to bring to the game on Friday night claiming he only wants to use his own dice for his character.

They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.

Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.

If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.

I think that something was semantically lost when “terrorist” became the generic term that is used today.

I’m going to attempt to be both neutral and clear here, as someone who has been in the industry. What the Houthis are doing are acts of war. Whether or not one believes or sympathizes with their declared motivations aside, they are committing acts of violence against military and civilian vessels. Other nations are justified in striking Houthi targets to degrade their capabilities under every legal and moral concept of Just War theory. It doesn’t matter if you’re rooting for one side or the other - the Houthis without provocation are firing upon vessels.

That’s not terrorism. That is making war. Attacking warships isn’t terrorism. Attacking civilian vessels doing trade that you’re blockading isn’t terrorism. It’s been done pretty much since we’ve put to sea.

The definition of terrorism got weird when people realized that incidents like Hiroshima would be considered terrorism. They inexplicably stuck in a phrase about “non-state actors” which still staggers me as a qualifier. Then they called the Taliban terrorists when they fired at US Marine units.

“Terrorist” as a designation by the US government has certain legal implications, and that’s why it gets considered and applied. What they really mean, though, is that it is an enemy combat force. Designate them as an “enemy combatant organization.”

Oh cool - another Great Replacement Theory website.

I have read about individuals doing this, but to my knowledge it has never happened in any sufficient numbers to tilt a primary in any state.

Some states run open primaries, so that any person can vote in any (but only one) primary. Other states run closed primaries, such that any voter who has registered as a member of that party can vote in that particular party’s primary. Yet others (eg, California last time I checked) have mixed modes. I believe the CA GOP primary is closed by the Democratic primary is open.

You can tell relatively easily by the number of votes in any given primary election whether they’re consistent in terms of turnout with previous years. As far as I’ve ever read, they tend to be year over year consistent. The one trend that has been noted in recent years is a small but as far as I know steady increase in independent voters (who as stated may or may not be able to vote in primaries depending on their state, but based on number of votes cast do not seem to have been a deciding factor in primary votes).

I generally have suspected that the idea of people switching parties to act as primary spoilers is largely just projection, as we tend to expect malfeasance of the Other, but the hard truth is that you can barely get large numbers of people to vote in actual elections, much less in something like a primary.

The pod gun from Fifth Element is one of the most interesting from both a design and an effects perspective IMO.

Except it’s more intense, with older parts of the nervous system getting mis-developed.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I’m confused by what you’re referring to here. If you mean that the parts of the brain that develop in older children and young adults (eg the frontal cortex and prefrontal cortex) get maldeveloped, then I agree with you. If you additionally mean that this has deleterious downstream effects on the limbic system through loss of feedback and control mechanisms, I also agree wholeheartedly. If you mean evolutionarily older parts of the brain or parts that develop earlier in childhood (and there’s overlap there of course), I’m not entirely sure which specific aspects of neuroanatomy you’re referencing.

Could you include additional details if that’s the case?

In any case, the answer to “why shouldn’t one sexually abuse a child” is the same as “why shouldn’t one physically abuse a child,” “why shouldn’t one starve a child,” and “why shouldn’t one force a child to work on large scale heavy machinery in factories for twelve hours per day seven days a week.” It damages the child, it damages the abuser, and it damages society.

1. You’re sealioning.
2. There is nothing I know of that would make anyone think that a pedophile is only a single rational argument away from abusing children.

The civilian shipping lines that were attacked without provocation were and are part of the international community, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. In addition, US military vessels were directly and repeatedly attacked, which international law permits as deserving of a military response. The US would be within its rights to start an attack using tomahawks as well as loitering drones over the territory to hit vehicles and personnel.

Now do Space 1999.

There are plenty of legitimate governments - and to be clear, by “legitimate” we usually mean the government recognized by the international community, whether or not any given people think they’re good guys or whatever - who do not control all of the territory they claim.

The point is that if a territory is under control of a foreign or rebel group and is attacking international civilian or military assets, then the international community can respond if the country that has claims to the territory cannot. I’m not even sure that the Yemeni government is in a position to coordinate strikes at this point, but that would be the standard approach otherwise.

If the Proud Boys took over south Texas and started launching military attacks against Mexican military facilities, and the US government was unable to stop them, Mexico and the international community would be within their legal rights to stop them.

It is in no way a breach of Yemeni authority. th government has no control over the territory in question, and it is being used to make repeated military strikes against US military and international civilian targets. This is entirely legal and justified under both US and international law. I’m just surprised it took this long.

This article is bullshit.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The president can engage in airstrikes or in naval or ground warfare as long as they notify Congress after the fact within two days, and then can carry on operations for three months without congressional approval. It is used all the time.

US armed forces came under attack by Houthi forces on multiple occasions. Biden is well within the law in committing military forces to action, and could do anything up to and including a ground invasion of Yemen with a hundred thousand marines (although he won’t - this is going to be bombs and drones).

You can argue that Congress should not have abdicated its responsibility to declare war back in 1973 (I think it was a stupid idea and has been ripe for abuse), but this is what every president has used since it was passed.

I noticed that his bronzer utilization has increased pretty steadily. If you ever see a shot of him wearing no makeup - sometimes they get one when he’s golfing yet again - he looks like a walking corpse.

What will never cease to amaze me is how these hyper-macho maga types have so completely dedicated their very lives to a cake-level makeup wearing NYC landlord billionaire who says that military vets are suckers for joining, that POWs should be dismissed as useless, and who eats his steaks well done with ketchup and would never touch a beer. All of that flag waving macho bullshit is really just bullshit for show. It literally doesn’t matter to them.

Biden could order the military to kill all Republican members of Congress as well as any democrats who would support his impeachment for doing so. He could order the execution of all of their replacements as well. He could even order the execution of governors who appoint congresspeople who don’t support his agenda, and the voters who voted for them.

I’m sure this is exactly what the authors of the constitution intended.

Gamora, her arms wide.

I’m not going to get into too much interpretation of the names on this list until more details come out.

The way Epstein worked was to court those he saw as socially powerful - scientists, business leaders, politicians, actors - and fete them to create a social network around himself. He might throw a dinner party and say Bill Clinton is coming, and he’s really interested in your ideas about eradicating malaria.” I don’t know if he did so with the intent of feeding his own ego or of increasing his own sphere of influence, wealth, and power, although he obviously did so.

I also know that with at least a subset of his social network, he engaged in enabling the rape of children, and that this was key to several of those relationships.

What I’m not certain of at this time is who among his social network were of the dinner party set and who were part of the raping children set. Having spent a lot of time in academia, I honestly believe that it’s entirely possible - I’d even call it probable - that there’s many people of note who would not have heard of Epstein and who would not have harbored a suspicion that they should check out someone looking to introduce them to philanthropists or people in positions of power. I’ve had meals with Nobel laureates and could not have told you anything about anyone else at the table who weren’t previously known to me, and even there the context would be limited to their professional work.

I think this needs to be investigated fully, and I think that anyone guilty of raping children should have the consequences of their actions. I’m just unwilling to judge an association based on a list of names of a known social crawler whose entire purpose was collecting people.

I’m simply saying that I’m going to hold off on making assumptions about the nature of their relationship to Epstein without further revelations.