Skip Navigation

Posts
10
Comments
2,960
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The 1950s economy was the result of:

    1. The New Deal
    2. A world war which destroyed the infrastructure of every developed economy except for the US.

    The New Deal was only possible because of the Great Depression. Only that level of chaos was enough so that left-wing politicians could push through radical reforms that moved power from the elite to the workers. The reforms of the New Deal remained in place after the war, at least for a while.

    The second world war saw the destruction of the industrial capacity of the UK, Germany, France and the USSR. Meanwhile the only attack on the US was an attack on military targets at a Navy base in a distant territory.

    So, if you want an economy similar to the 1950s, arrange for a world war which somehow leaves the US unscathed but destroys every other similarly developed economy, then arrange for a great depression which destroys the economy to such an extent that radical reforms can be enacted to hand power to the average worker.

    Yes, of course nothing bad would happen if we switched to a 20 hour work week. But, the people with the power aren't going to just allow that to happen. The 40 hour work week only happened with a massive series of strikes that were brutally put down by the cops. The change to a 20 hour week isn't just going to happen because some workers think it would be cool.

  • That's absolute bullshit. When the 40 hour workweek was "invented", men were working 12 hour days in factories and their wives also worked. The wives sometimes worked in factories, often worked as domestic servants for richer people, or did home-based work. Home based work was often laundry or cooking for other people, not just their family. They'd sometimes also finish goods that were produced in a factory. Both partners were working 12+ days. And, while women did most of the home cooking and cleaning, it wasn't as though that's all they did.

    This system ended because the workers used their power and went on strike. The result was the Haymarket Affair and is the reason that most countries, other than the US, celebrate a worker's day on May 1st. The striking workers were attacked and beaten by the cops, and then because a bomb was thrown at a cop, the leaders of an anarchist group were rounded up and hanged after show trials.

    Eventually the striking workers got what they were working for: an 8 hour day. But, it took decades after the Haymarket Affair for it to happen, and it wasn't something that happened because everyone agreed it made sense. It was a long and bloody fight where that was the compromise that reduced the bloodshed.

    If you want a 20 hour work week, join a union, prepare to go on strike and prepare to be beaten by the cops.

  • The first who joined that Safe Place for Science program. I'm sure there have been others who didn't know about that, or didn't want the publicity, but just left quietly when they realized how bad things were getting.

  • The quote in his online biography about his modeling career is a bit more detailed:

    Dolph took up modeling at the famous Zoli Agency to make some extra cash. 'A bit too tall and muscular for a model's size 40',

    Wow. Can you imagine a bigger ego boost than being turned down to be a male model because you're just too tall and muscular?

    Being perpetually exhausted because your celebrity girlfriend keeps bringing back too many girls for the group sex session is a close second though.

  • Ha! It makes it sound like you're saying that young black kids are self-important dickheads and that's why he's a good role model.

    But, yeah, I know what you're trying to say. Despite his social media presence, the image that kids generally see is a very positive one. He's a somewhat stylish (in his own way) guy, who clearly has personality, and is a very accomplished scientist. I just cringe any time he comments on something not related to astrophysics.

  • Yeah, but look at why he quit:

    However, while preparing for the move to Boston, he was spotted in the nightclub where he worked in Sydney and was hired by Grace Jones as a bodyguard, and the two became lovers.[18] He moved with Jones to New York City, where he dabbled in modeling at the Zoli Agency but was described as "a bit too tall and muscular for a model's size 40".

    It's not like he said "this is too hard for me", it's more like he said "wait, I can have this other life instead?"

  • Not the same with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

    I'm not his biggest fan, but I fully respect his scientific credentials. He has a PhD from Columbia. He published at least a dozen papers. There's no question that he's a scientist, a manager of scientists, as well as a science communicator.

    The problem is that his success seems to have destroyed his humility. It's not that he brags about being so incredibly smart. It's more that he doesn't ever seem to sit back and say "hey, maybe this isn't something where my contributions won't be appreciated". I think his science communication is doing more good than harm. I think he's a great role model for little black boys who think all scientists are white, or that they're all stuffy nerds with no personality. But, I think he's at his best when he's in a show where there's a script and an editor. On social media and on free-form podcasts, he comes off as a know-it-all ass.

  • I found the video this was taken from and he starts out very red. I don't know if it's bad studio lighting, a bad sunburn, or a combination, but right from the start he was very red. I guess when he got all emotional it just got that much worse.

  • It's not "getting emotional about being a father figure", whatever you mean by that.

    It's Jordan Peterson, a horrible human being. One of his main beliefs is that women should adopt traditional roles and men should lead, and he justifies that with vague things like saying that women score higher in negative emotions. So, it's perfectly fair to dunk on him for losing control of his emotions in a video interview.

  • :(

    Jump
  • NASA says there are only 5 dwarf planets in the system. But, it's all pretty arbitrary. The line between planet, dwarf planet and asteroid are all pretty fuzzy.

    An alien civilization looking at the Sol system might say that it's only got one planet, Jupiter. Everything else is so much smaller that they're not really significant.

    Another logical cut-off would be that planets had to be bigger than any moons in the system. If we went by that standard, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Venus and Mars could all still count as planets, but Mercury would get ditched because it's smaller than Ganymede and Titan.

    What's funny is that we're still using the name "planet" which comes from "asteres planētai", meaning "wandering star". For the Greeks what mattered wasn't the size or the mass, it was how bright they were. That meant that a tiny object near the sun like Mercury (Hermes) got the name planet, because despite being tiny, the fact it's close to the sun means it reflects a lot of light. And Jupiter (Zeus) and Saturn (Cronus) got named not because they're so big, but because they're big and far away from the sun, which means they reflect sunlight in a similar way to the much smaller inner planets. Earth's moon might have been given the name "planet" if it had been a lot smaller and/or further away.

  • Wow, my comment was removed for just a mild hint that Chinese communism isn't free from corruption?

  • Agree

    Jump
  • Ouch. Good to know it's possible though.

  • Agree

    Jump
  • You... I like you.

    You'd really have liked it if I started talking about how the winters in Ontario, CA are much more pleasant than the ones in Ontario, CA.

    Recreation just switches to an early morning or post-sundown schedule.

    Ah, right. I hadn't considered that. It's interesting that the places with the most brutal heat are the ones with a relatively early sunset. In 2023 Oslo hit 32 degrees, not that hot by international standards, but combine that with the fact it happened on June 15th and the sun never fully sets at that time of year, and it's hard to find relief.

    I usually still get 3-4 hours of sports activities on a saturday or sunday.

    Do you live somewhere where the mid-day heat is 35+C? 40+C? To me, those are the only ones where it's truly brutal and I might prefer long, harsh winters. OTOH, human culture hasn't really found a great way to deal with brutally cold winters. There are winter solstice celebrations, but no adjustment of the schedule of life to avoid the worst of the cold. But, in places with really hot summers there's often a tradition of mid-day naps, and I could really get on board with that lifestyle.

  • The alternative to birthright is blood right or inheritance right.

    Which is a right based on your conditions of birth, and therefore a form of birthright citizenship. Both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Solis are forms of birthright citizenship.

  • For some of them it's "if you don't want to risk your life in the armed forces, but really, really want other people to go and murder children and steal land so you can benefit, go study the Talmud".

  • The Tragedy of the Commons was popularized by a man who was anti-immigrant and pro-eugenics, and it's not good science. The good science on it was done by Elinor Ostrom who won a Nobel-ish prize for fieldwork showing that various societies around the world had solved the issues of the governance of commons.

    The thing is, Ostrom didn't disprove it as a concept. She just proved that with the right norms and rules in place it doesn't inevitably lead to collapse. IMO it's not about capitalism or communism, it's about population. A small number of people who all know each-other can negotiate an arrangement that everyone can agree to. But, once you have thousands or millions of people, and each user of the commons knows almost none of the other users, it's different. At that point you need a government to set rules, and law enforcement to enforce those rules. That, of course, fails when the commons is something like the world's atmosphere and there's no worldwide government that can set and enforce rules.

  • It's about as narrowly targeted a chant as you can get.

    It's not about jews. It's not about israelis. It's specifically the army of israel. If that's not narrowly targeted enough, what's acceptable? "Down with the members of the IDF who intentionally target civilians but not those members of the IDF who are willing to risk a court martial to make sure that they only attack valid military targets?" Doesn't make a very good chant.