charred_patina

> I just can't see a coherent line of discussion here. What I see is a set line of conclusions that you want to support. Few of which really directly apply to the claims of this thread.

I spelled out for you what I would consider to be the best course of action for all parties. I'm not really sure what else I can do.

> Worse, even if your stance is predicated on all actors in the area being evil, there is a certain level you have to ignore to not see the cartoonish quality of "Death to America"

I don't have any issue with someone chanting "Death to America". In some parts of the world I can understand that level of hatred for the USA. I totally think their antisemitism is abhorrent however. To quote Col. Kurtz:

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "f**" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"

We aid Saudi Arabia dropping bombs on them from the sky, I can't be too offended when their slogan is "death to the USA".

> to equivocate them with others in the area is borderline insulting.

Qatar has a population made up of 80% slaves. Israel was founded on ethnic displacement and is an apartheid state with no human rights, and is actively doing a genocide right now. The extremist elements in Israel are actively in power. I consider them to be the Jewish equivalent of US white nationalists. I don't think I need to list out the human rights violations of every country in order to make the point that all states are immoral.

> And again, if you can't bring positive reasons to support one group, decrying "look at how evil everyone else is" is a deflection.

I don't support groups, I support moral actions (Not that my opinion matters in the great scheme of things), but the course of action should not be about supporting the team that you think is less bad, but exploiting the relationships between the immoral states to achieve the least violent and most just outcome.

> You are refusing to actually engage with the declared evil intentions of one, by forcing a discussion on implied evil intentions of others.

The evil intentions of USA and Israel are not implied, they are stated and then acted on. You can listen to Netanyahu directly state his plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza under the protection of the US. You can also hear Joe Biden verbatim say "if there was no Israel in the middle east we would have to invent one. Why? Because it is in our own naked self interest."

https://theconversation.com/biden-says-the-u-s-would-have-to...

I think genocide and the funding of a genocide are evil. I also think Islamic terrorism is evil. However there is a path forward that involves all of the players communicating with each other to minimize bloodshed and maximize justice.

My intention has not been to apply whataboutisms to the Houthis, but to make the point that you have to be realistic and approach situations as they are, not as you wish they were. In my opinion, under this framework, the US will need to negotiate with the Houthis and stop Israel's genocide if they want to solve this problem in the best way possible.

The USA spent trillions of dollars with this mindset and now has to recognize them as a legitimate government.

My point is you can either be realistic and save yourself a lot of headache, or you can be idealistic and waste a lot of time and money because of your own hubris.

> You literally brought Israel into this discussion with the sole purpose to undermine a criticism of a group that is calling for the death of others. That is a deflection.

I brought it up to show that your argument is one-sided and doesn't take into account the nuance of the situation. One of my main points has been that US news media's whitewashing of Israel is the main reasons that the OP I replied to was unable to understand why the Houthis had broad support in the Islamic world. However, if you look at the situation objectively (not through US-centric lens) it becomes really obvious what's happening.

The problem is that we hyper focus on the evil of our enemies, and don't focus on the evil of our allies and our own country. So it's not possible to look at the situation with a pro-Israel/pro-US pov and understand it.

> Charity to it, if you are solely trying to point out that all participants are evil over there, what is your proposed frame of action? Is the claim that they are all equally villainous and evil?

USA open a line of communication with Houthis (directly or via China). USA and UN declare the bombing of Gaza as a genocide. USA/UN Force Israel to stop genocide either through threat of sanctions, or enforce a no-fly zone and shoot down a plane if necessary. Get Netanyahu out and back his more liberal opposition. Make peace with the Houthis and try to legitimize their power, while imposing conditions of liberalization on them. Deconstruct the apartheid/surveillance state Israel has set up through reforms. People argue about 2-state vs 1-state, I personally believe a 1-state could work but I am not informed enough to say. Lastly, try Netanyahu + his cabinet and Hamas as war criminals so that there is accountability and justice.

All the players that I just mentioned, I truly believe them to be forces for evil. Why? Because the plan I proposed won't happen. It would be the most reasonable and morally just course of action, but because all of these people are operating ideologically, they won't do it. If they all sat down and brokered out a peace deal then I would consider that to be a "good" act, even if their overwhelming actions are still mostly evil.

> I confess having cognitive dissonance in how you can both think they are all bad people, and that we should take a "reasonable" path to discussing with them.

Because I think all countries are evil. I think the state monopoly on violence is wrong. However in the real world you have to play the hand you are dealt. I think the US (evil) using its power to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel (evil) to get the Houthis (evil) to stop, is the most moral action that can be taken right now.

> And again, bringing up other questionable choices by the US is a dog whistle to get support against "Western" powers. It is a deflection because it does not build up any support for the groups there, it is only a way to undermine other discourse.

I am not sure you fully understand my pov. I don't think Iran is better than the US or vice versa. I think they are all evil. However in this circumstance the US is the one with the power to stop a genocide. The US could literally force Netanyahu out TODAY, if the political will was there. There would still be other problems in the region of course.

The main point I want to make is that it is hypocritical and not productive to just come out and say "the Houthis are doing this because they are bad and evil". It completely obscures the courses of action the US should take to resolve this crisis.

> Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior.

I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists".

I am unable to reply to your comment in the other chain (ok for some reason it let me comment now)

> Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior.

I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists".

> The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions?

I don't buy their PR hook line and sinker. But the reasonable thing to do here is open a line of communication and negotiate with them. Call for a ceasefire, get ships passing back through the Red Sea, and figure out how to solve this all somewhat peacefully.

> I get that you don't like Israel. I don't know why I would necessarily want to change your mind there, all told. I can say you should not let that drive you to such allies as terrorists that attack trade ships.

My point throughout this whole thread has not been to say Israel is uniquely evil or the Houthis are good, but that people in the west have been conditioned to look at this conflict without any nuance, which is antithetical to good policy, or even just understanding the situation.

I mean for christ sake we still have sanctions on Cuba 60 years later. So many US foreign policy moves are motivated by ideology or some moral judgement, rather than actual strategy or humanitarian ideals.

I really have tried to use fairly neutral language for all of my posts in this thread, I don't know why people have interpreted this as me defending the Houthis. I take it as an example of the fact that actually being truly neutral in an analysis is viewed as having non-neutral stance, because the default assumption in western nations is that the US hegemony is good and everyone loves it 24/7.

Is it not cartoon villainy when Israel has killed 23,000 people indiscriminately? Or Israeli real estate companies post pictures of planned beachside condos photoshopped onto rubble in Gaza? Or when Israel murdered 3 of the hostages because they assumed they were unarmed Palestinian civilians?

All of the groups in this region (and the world at large), government or not, are extremely evil and capable of unimaginable violence. You cannot pick and choose to ignore the evils of one group because it is politically beneficial. Well, you can, but that's hypocritical.

The point is that if your goal is to keep the region stable, maximize your influence, and minimize deaths, you have to treat everyone according to the leverage they have. Not the leverage you wish they had based on your moral judgements.

The US media overwhelmingly portrays this as Israel being picked on "for no reason" by all of the savages in the region, and this hampers people in the west's ability to look at the situation objectively.

This describes pretty much every country on the planet right now.

I think the real distinction is that terrorists are non-state actors who use violence (bad). States are legally allowed to use violence (necessary).

But the common parlance of terrorist usually means "US designated terrorist" which really means "group we refuse to bargain with".

The Taliban were a terrorist group, now they are a government. The Iraqi army was a legitimate army, then many became ISIS, a terrorist group.

> If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting.

These attacks coincided with the bombing and are the stated reason.

> As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this.

I know this might get me downvoted, but I don't think that the designation of terrorist is super helpful here. It's usually just used to delegitimize a group by saying they can't be negotiated with. It's hubris to think that anyone you decide to designate as a terrorist no longer has to be negotiated with like any other political entity.

In my pov, the bombing of Gaza is a terroristic act. Yet the US finances it and sanctions it. If the Houthis have done worse, then I would agree with the terrorist designation. But it should be clear that the distinction is arbitrary.

> As for why they would want to destabilize the region?

What do you consider destabilization? I think most of the time I see "destabilization" it is used as a code word for weakening US influence. The US destabilized Iraq by taking out Saddam and disbanding the army. It destabilized Afghanistan by removing the Taliban and sanctioning warlords. It can be argued whether these places were better or worse under US occupation, but just like the word "terrorist" used earlier, my point is that the word "destabilized" is a moral signifier that is used when people don't want to engage in a realistic conversation about the situation.

I am curious, how do you distinguish between the two? To me it seems like the US designation of terrorist just means "group we don't want to negotiate with". The US has backed rebels and regimes that have done equally bad (if not worse) stuff in the past, and not labeled them as terrorists.

I am not trying to justify or defend a group whose motto is "curse on the Jews" but I don't think the designation of terrorist is particularly useful for understanding the situation.

"We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way" -- Toby Keith

Maybe this quote would be helpful for understanding the anger Americans felt post-9/11, but it wouldn't be helpful for understanding US geopolitics.

I started working at a lab where I am the only SWE and everyone else is a scientist. I have a lab notebook, but I don't use it properly (thankfully nobody gets on my case about it). I usually just use it as a short-term working memory, but it helps me keep track of the progress I've made. It's nice to look back on something I was working on two months ago and see all my thoughts written down about which library to use or architecture to use. Looking back at my past struggles gives me a sense of accomplishment and progress.

That said, I usually try to preserve the results of my "experimentation" in documentation with the software, so I can share it with others. It's a good sign when people never talk about X to me, and I end up asking them if they ever used X and they tell me "I just used your documentation". Best feeling ever.

I didn't mean to imply that medicine should be as easy as car maintenance, just that I'm typically satisfied with my mechanic, but not with my doctors. There is a disparity in customer satisfaction.

I have wondered why we even need primary care doctors when it seems like if you really need treatment, you see a specialist. Not to be the "disruptive technology will fix X industry" guy, but wouldn't it make sense to have nurses and techs just run a diagnostic on you and feed it into a computer, which can spit out a list of possible causes, which you then take to a specialist?

I don't really know much about this stuff so I'm genuinely curious why our system seems to suck so bad from the outside.

No offense, but what do medical schools prepare you for? I know very few people who have ever said "yeah I have a really great doctor", and then it's only because they spent time searching and learning to navigate the system.

When I go to the mechanic (honest ones) will tell me everything wrong with my car. When I go to the doctor, unless I do outside research and proffer solutions, they just send me home.

On a related note, I think a big part of the anti-vax phenomenon is how many people end up seeking care outside of the medical system because it's so broken. People find holistic solutions like diet and exercise and end up falling down a conspiracy pipeline.

The answer I am going to give you starts with the idea that we live in a patriarchy, where men are programmed with a subconscious bias about women. If you can't entertain that idea then you will disagree with everything I say afterwards, but just hear me out for the sake of argument.

This unconscious bias is mostly invisible to men, but very visible to women. Women realize acutely that they are being treated differently in social interactions or in portrayals in fiction. They have to experience it every single day so it becomes really obvious.

Now some examples of "Bad Writing" could be creating a Mary Sue, or having too much exposition. Neither of these have anything to do with gender.

"Bad Male Writing" would be a phenomenon that comes about as a result of subconscious bias that a man learns from growing up in a patriarchical society. Some examples of "Bad Male Writing" would be not characterizing women enough, spending a lot of time on their appearances, etc.

It sounds like what tipped OP off to the author being male was the irrationality of one of the female characters. To steal from another comment in this thread:

> I am blaming the author for producing a work that is just shallow in a gendered feeling way. Were the author a woman, they might have realized that women don't just do things randomly but instead, drawing on her past experience being a woman, that they usually have a backstory where these things originate from.

> How does gender add anything here?

It adds something to the analysis because men and women have different experiences and that informs their worldview.

The whole internet meme of men thinking about the roman empire is relevant here.

When men think about the Roman empire they think about the conquest, the logistics, the infrastructure, the engineering, the military tactics, etc.

When women think about the Roman empire they usually think about how horrible it must have been to live under it as a woman. Men (mostly) don't consider the difficulty of menstruation in a city without a sewer system. Or the danger of childbirth in a world without germ theory and basic hygiene.

There is an entire dimension to the roman empire that the male fantasy overlooks.

These aren't insane or radical concepts, most of this is "pop culture" feminism I have learned literally just by talking to women.

> It’s difficult to judge unless you actually know people that own these type of cars.

Sure this is true, but living in Texas I can tell you most people do not need them, and pay for them as status symbols. There are more trucks today than there have ever been, and fewer people working jobs that need them. The explosion in growth comes from marketing.

As for just truck-centric solutions, I'd say there needs to be a minimum bed size limit and some sort of ratio for bed size to cab/engine size. There is no reason that 2/3rds of the truck is not bed. Trucks should be at least 50% bed. If a truck is a utility vehicle it doesn't need to look sexy, it can look like a Kei truck.

Trucks should also have height limits and be tested for visibility. If you cant see a child or a coupe next to your truck, it is too high. Not to mention that high beds suck for utility compared to low beds.

I think trucks should be designed so that the only reason you would ever own a truck is if you needed to move things. If you want something "manly" trucks should be so utilitarian that they don't even factor into consideration.

> Are you seriously asking 'stavros if he considered that other people may have sexist views and therefore his non-sexist view take is wrong?

I am asking Stavros to consider that Women readers may be hyper-aware of bad male writing due to its ubiquity. Stavros does not have this view and is upset that someone made him aware of their perspective. I am not a woman so I am not as aware of bad female writing, but when I consume media around women they are able to pick up on things that I would never have noticed.

Stavros' inability to understand something this basic means he either has a hard time understanding that people have different POVs, or is so entrenched in anti-gender politics that he can't even fathom a woman's perspective of being forced to read bad writing without getting upset about... (something??? I am not sure what).

I am sorry you don't have the maturity to process different points of view.

> because here I was, reading this story, not generalizing about what gender does what, just seeing a character with flaws, and then your comment comes along and makes it not just about the gender of the character, but the gender of the author as well

Have you considered that your POV is limited, and that a woman reading this story (and every other story) might have a different perspective than you?

> I wish I could go back and unread it, then I wouldn't have spent ten minutes writing this inelegant rebuttal.

You seem to be upset that someone had a different perspective. You might want to learn some emotional control techniques if you are this upset over an observation someone made.

> God I am so disgusted by trucks as virtue/status signaling

If you own a truck for its utility then my statement doesn't apply to you. They are utility vehicles. I can safely say thought that a majority of people who own them live in the suburbs and don't use them for their intended purpose. They are just used to signal status.

God I am so disgusted by trucks as virtue/status signaling. This is just that turned up to 11. I really wish we just recognized cars as transportation and built them for that purpose, while providing alternatives. Such a misallocation of resources.

I mean, we can only speculate. But "nuclear non-proliferation for thee, secret nukes for me" hasn't really worked out great in the middle east so far.

It's obvious that "realpolitik" makes some nations winners and others losers-- while the lives of real human beings hang in the balance. I think anyone who thinks they should determine the winners and losers needs to be heavily criticized. Regardless of which side they are on.

The fact that nuclear weapons are about deterrence means you don't want them to be secret. A secret nuclear weapon's primary use would be a revenge weapon. Or to blow up a city in a surprise attack. Neither of which is particularly "defensive".

There's a reason why we have arms treaties and try to be transparent about our nuclear capabilities. I know it's a movie but Dr. Strangelove is a great example of the thinking behind this.

I get that the point is to keep the balance of power in the favor of the US, but the practical outcome was letting Israel secretly develop a revenge/offensive nuclear bomb. If it got used potentially millions would die, and you can't even make the argument that it acts as a stabilizer via MAD.

He has always creeped me out. The way pg talks about him is meant to be an endorsement, but it makes Sam seem like a Svengali whose main quality is the ability to manipulate and get what he wants.

September 11th

Maybe I just have low standards for literature, I didn't realize so many people disliked the books but on r/scifi and here on HN people really dislike the Three Body Problem series.

I liked it but after the first 50 pages of book one I realized "Oh, this is anime". I think that having consumed a lot of anime in my teenage years I have more tolerance for story arcs that overstay their welcome, but make up for it with epic twists/payoff. I think that these expectations make it more palatable.

I just found out about this game and have been playing it pretty much nonstop. The developer has an active Discord with a nice community.

The game gets pretty complex, with radar, missile tracking and other features. It's open source and extensible too.

What are the rankings based on? I was surprised to see Proteus in the #2 spot. It's very slow in person, and not like it has the amount of PR that Spot or Atlas do.

Side note, I got to see a full-sized Spot in person. Nothing prepares you for how loud it stomps. They were doing a demonstration on the second floor and I thought the building was gonna collapse.

Really? What didn't you like about them? I ask because I found them pretty refreshing (even if there ere some annoying tropes)

If you like sci-fi, you should read the Three Body Problem series. I won't post any spoilers but the "no fun" setting is a plot point.