WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

834

Joined

11 mo. ago

I remember a moment like this in Asimov's Foundation series, a series set in a far-off setting of a galaxy-spanning empire built on easy interstellar travel. At one point a couple gets on board their personal interstellar space ship. As they're getting on, the husband tells his wife to go cook dinner.

Oh, and for an added bonus, their ash trays are nuclear powered.

Sure. I remember reading the concept somewhere, perhaps in an old r/asksciencefiction thread. I didn't come up with it originally.

I don't believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena, but I do love the concept in fiction that ghosts aren't actual human souls. Rather, they're a sort of psychic "burn in." If a living person experiences strong emotions, such as a prolonged period of grieving, or the incredible emotional intensities that come with being murder victim, those emotions can become embedded within a place. Do you grieve for a deceased partner, mourning for years, remembering key moments over and over? A reflection of that grief becomes embedded within reality in the location you experienced those emotions. When you die or leave, someone else can come into that place and experience a recording, a reflection, or echo of the emotions and memories you experienced.

Ghosts are effectively traumatic memories burned in to the fabric of the world. They don't actually experience anything; they're not conscious beings. They're not souls looking to complete their business and move on. They're simply psychic echoes. They're imprints left on reality from very intense and painful emotions, particularly those experienced repeatedly over a long period of time.

This also explains why ghosts have a half life. Ever wonder why in the US, all the ghosts seem to be old timey white people from the 1800s or similar? Considering the total number of Native Americans that must have lived in what is now the US down the millennia, the vast, vast majority of ghosts should be Native American. But aside from the classic example of a disturbed native burial ground, Native American ghosts don't show up much in fiction. It's usually old timey white people.

The reason for this, in the imprint theory, is that like any imprint, ghosts tend to fade with time. Just as most footprints will slowly be eroded, the knots in the psychic fabric that ghosts represent slowly work themselves out over time. The ghosts people do experience tend to be from the last century or two, as most ghosts older than that have decayed below the level of human perception.

Yes. Because social context and group think matter. The Democratic Party is indeed stuck in a coastal elite mindset. When I say school, it's not even specifically about the kind of instruction the schools teach. It's more about the social networks that have developed around these elite institutions. It encouragesc group think and narrow minded approaches. It's why every Dem policy proposal is the same collection of wonkish tax credits. It's why nationalizing the banks wasn't one the table during the 2008 recession. It's why they don't know how to reach regular people. They just don't know how to think any differently. Hell, look up the figures on federal judge nominations by law school attendance. It's insane how much narrow minded we allow our institutions to be simply by primarily recruiting from a handful of elite schools and their alumni networks.

Perhaps what is needed is a "progressive caucus pre-primary." Have a party within a party. The progressives hold an unofficial primary in 2027 between anyone who wants to run under the banner. They hold debates, have some way of getting people to vote, etc. The progressive caucus holds debates and selects a single candidate to endorse. Then, going into the actual primary, the progressive voting base is entirely united around one candidate from the beginning. That candidate would also have a hell of a lot of momentum going into the primary as they would already have one wing of the party entirely behind them.

I think the campaigns at this point can be funded with regular donations. I don't think corporate donations are even needed at this point.

The key thing to realize is that in a presidential race, you reach advertising saturation. Hillary and Kamala both massively outspent Trump in their campaigns, but they still lost. Their financial advantage didn't help because ads reach saturation. At some point, everyone already knows about the candidates, and additional money spent really doesn't help you.

The Democratic party could get by just fine with the amount of donations they can raise from individual donors. They don't do this because the consultants that run the DNC ad buying get paid a percentage of all ad buys. And the DNC itself simply benefits from having larger budgets in general. So the push is always to have as much ad spend as possible, even if having that large ad spend requires cozying up to oligarchs.

It goes beyond just that. I think a Democratic presidential candidate could do well addressing elitist thinking in general. I think they could do quite well with a pledge not to appoint anyone to their cabinet or to a court that graduated from an Ivy League school. One of the reasons we keep seeing the same shitty approaches is that both parties recruit heavily from the same handful of schools. This they're recruited from the same social circles. I would suggest that candidates just flat out state that they'll be filling all their major spots with people who got their education at state schools.

I was in Houston for Hurricane Harvey. We didn't get flooded, but the whole city was paralyzed for two weeks. And that was just to get basic transportation functioning again. I was teaching undergraduate students at the time, and my class was just cancelled for two weeks in the fall term. We just missed two semesters of the fall term with no makeup.

My home didn't get flooded, but many of my students and colleagues did experience flooding. We did however have a leak open up in the back wall of our townhome. We had a leak that allowed water in the back wall, which resulted in water damage in two rooms. I filed a claim with insurance, but they lowballed us, and after the hurricane, contractors only wanted to work on big projects, whole house gutting and repair. So I actually did the repairs myself. I figured I could either use the insurance payment to cover 1/3 of the repair cost, or I could use the insurance payment to buy the tools I needed to do it myself. I first built an access scaffolding behind the unit to fix the leak. Afterwards on the inside I tore out a bunch of drywall and repaired the interior damage.

Oh well, it put me down the path I'm on now. I eventually got really into woodworking, starting with the tools I had bought to do that repair. And further down the road, that put me on the path to pursuing a PhD in wood science. So what a tangled web we weave, I suppose...

A lever and a proper surface on which to stand.

One trans person will commit a misguided act of violence in a protest against anti-trans laws. All price increases from then on are blamed on transgender terrorist cells targeting the supply chain.

Of course, deportation requires cooperation of the other country. Until your new home is willing to accept you, you will of course have to remain in custody...

Unethical life pro tip: get an apartment that isn't at the end of a hallway and has floors above and below. In some cases, you can turn off your heat completely and simply steal heat from your neighbors, leeching off of them like some sort of thermal mosquito. It won't be as warm as is comfortable without bundling up, but it may be warm enough to get by just by bundling up. Watch out for freezing pipes though!

For an added techno bonus: install a smart thermostat connected to a camera pointed at the door with facial recognition tech built in. If anyone other than the residents walk in, the thermostat is automatically reset to 72F/22C. That way if you DO burst a pipe, and the landlord walks in, they won't have any proof you did it!

Maybe. On a completely unrelated note, can you let me know the next time you'll be in public, preferably not standing within several feet of anyone else and anything flammable?

To light things on fire with my mind.

In terms of yourself, it already effectively is legal. When was the last time someone was prosecuted for attempting suicide?

My God in Heaven. It WAS aliens all along. A UFO intercepted Earhart's plane and turned it to stone with a space ray! Or, possibly, a wizard did it.

Honestly, I wonder people should start a movement that overtly supports capitulation to and cooperation with China. Start a movement that at least portrays things as being better in China, the people in China actually being freer, that leaders are held accountable, etc. Maybe even overtly say that you wouldn't care if the CCP wholesale took control of the country.

Do I actually espouse or believe any of these things? No. But honestly the ownership class could use a good heart attack once in awhile. Imagine if we had some decent percentage of the population overtly championing Maoism. Suddenly Medicare for All wouldn't seem so extreme, would it?

Because utilitarian ethics isn't the be and end all of moral decision making? Elections are just as much about holding people accountable as they are about choosing the utilitarian optimal future policy path.

It is crucial to remember that most of history's greatest atrocities were justified on utilitarian grounds - the greatest good for the greatest many. That's how eugenics was justified. That's how the crimes of the Nazis were justified. That's how the Tuskegee Experiment was justified. And it's how powerful men get away with being sexual predators. ("Yes, he may be a monster, but he's doing important work...")

Utilitarian decision making has its place. But at some point you also have to hold people accountable. And that's what you've missed. Remember, this is the only shot the voters ever got at holding Biden/Kamala responsible for their actions. This is literally the only way we as citizens have of directly holding these people accountable. Protests have their place, but voting is all we get in terms of direct accountability.

What is the point that you would stop using utilitarian ethics and start holding leaders accountable? What crime would be so bad that you wouldn't vote for a leader if you thought their overall policies would be superior to their opponent? Where do you personally draw the line? Because if you have no line...well God help you. Because you are already lost.

Bismark will be infuriated.

Shame. Shame upon you!