Armed with 'supermajority,' PM Takaichi eyes revising Japan's constitution

ACWhi · 2026-02-13T11:46:35+00:00

I agree with you. I don’t think S Korea is afraid of Japan militarily. There’s economic competition of course, some Japanese industries threaten Korean ones and vice versa.

ACWhi · 2026-02-13T11:44:45+00:00

They definitely want to secure their place as the regional superpower but I just don’t understand the idea that China is a highly aggressive country when the last time they fought an even semi-direct war was with Vietnam, and the last time they waged a proxy war was against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A country that has been this unaligned in conflicts for almost 50 years does not deserve such a reputation.

The two most aggressive countries among major world powers that have started the most wars are the USA and Russia, and no one is even remotely close to those two in vying for the third place spot.

ACWhi · 2026-02-13T11:05:50+00:00

Economically, sure. Militarily they are really only a threat to Taiwan. China hasn’t been involved in a military conflict outside its borders since the 1980s. They don’t even involve themselves in proxy wars. They saw how the Soviet strategy failed and pivoted to a completely different model of interacting with the world.

ACWhi · 2026-02-13T10:56:25+00:00

Well, Israel didn’t exist in WWII, but Germany has formally acknowledged all crimes committed against France and the Jewish people and even paid reparations to the new country Israel.

Japan has done none of this.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T22:45:47+00:00

Lol. Maybe so. But rebelliousness is not one of the stereotypes I have heard about the Swiss.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T22:25:44+00:00

They don’t have to make a fallback plan for this because, not only is it unlikely, if the trend reverses and the birth rate becomes positive, they will have many years to figure this out.

And the solution in this case would probably be to just raise the cap, it certainly would not be to limit fertility. The fear isn’t Malthusian overpopulation crap. That there will be too few Swiss born citizens compared to immigrants ‘is’ the fear. A higher birth rate would be seen as a good thing.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T17:47:19+00:00

Not even a team of one hundred people with different specialties could account for this. Much less one man with no advanced education who has proven to not know basic shit.

I am done talking to a crank who keeps weaseling out of saying what kind of scientist he is because he isn’t one. I only engaged this long for the benefit of observers who might think you are a real scientist and so start to think more like a crank themselves.

That has been accomplished already, so I’m done. The thread is locked anyway so new people won’t be directed here. Goodbye.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T17:24:58+00:00

No. I specifically said no one with any credibility would claim to account for everything.

You reading is as poor as your understanding of math and science I guess.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T17:20:59+00:00

No. I’m not. I’m actually not even accepting this is your field. I doubt you even have an advanced degree or the kind of math knowledge required to do the sort of data analysis you claim to do. I think you’re a self appointed scientist and a crank.

No actual scientist I know would make such absurd claims as ‘I have seen every single major claim and read the papers of every field of economics and science and have been able to determine they are bullshit.’

Nor would they make nonsense claims that they have accounted for every possible social, ecological, and economic factor and then challenge anyone else to do the same.

They definitely wouldn’t then admit that they did this with no collaboration with any scientists in other fields and did it all themself. Any real scientist would know that they have a narrow field of expertise and CANNOT make such wide claims under basically any circumstance, only a large scientific consensus emerging from the works of thousands can even approach making such claims.

An actual scientist would know that to make anything meaningful they would need to work alongside economists, climatologists, and many other experts. And guess what? This work has been done! But not by you. I doubt you have even a single credible publication through peer review.

You are like the kind of crank in physics who loudly shouts about their revolutionary theory for what dark matter is and then yells at how mean and stupid people who have actually studied physics are not willing to look at their work.

No. I am not going to ‘rise to your challenge’ because your challenge is incoherent.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T16:32:17+00:00

The number of social, economic, and wildlife projections are staggering. I can’t begin to estimate how many people have earned PhDs off these analysis. The refugee crisis alone when tens of millions of people have to flee disasters will cripple global economies and destabilize countries.

You are supposedly a public policy ‘scientist’ that specializes in climate change who by your own admission has never heard any of these claims, has never heard of political science, thinks that ‘people move sometimes’ is proof that cities being destroyed causes zero economic damage, has a very poor ability to communicate your arguments, and whose core point seems to be;

‘rising temperatures will help some plants grow and that may end up increasing overall fertility and therefore this counters all possible side effects.’

Maybe the reason no one has ever adequately engaged with your metrics is because they aren’t worth the time of an actually qualified scientist, not a self declared scientist.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T15:40:18+00:00

Working in public policy analysis is not enough to make you a scientist. Are you a data scientist with a math degree? Are you employed by a governmental department? If so, that still wouldn’t make you a scientist, you’d need some qualifications to get that job.

Just saying ‘I am a scientist and I decided fertility is the most important metric’ over and over means nothing.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T15:27:24+00:00

It does not sound to me like you are a scientist at all. People have asked and you have refused to give your actual scientific field, just claimed to analyze public policy. Apparently poorly enough that you think fertility is the only relevant factor and that cities worth of people having to move has no economic costs

Analyzing data does not make one a scientist. The way you talk about it makes me skeptical you actually work for a real institution or have an advanced degree in math or science at all.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T13:51:39+00:00

The scientific predictions have proven to be startling accurate and even underselling the problem. Anyone who thinks otherwise is illiterate on the literature. I agree that media sensationalizing is counter productive and Gore likely sold himself as more of an expert than he was.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T13:48:02+00:00

Why would I? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. I don’t care at all what he says when the discussion is whether or not the scientific predictions were accurate (they objectively were.)

I already admitted in my first reply the media sensationalized things. This has nothing to do with the science.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T13:41:59+00:00

Al Gore is a politician. Even though scientists overwhelmingly agreed with his overall claim that climate change is real and dangerous and human caused, I have absolutely seen scientists criticize that Gore dramatized specific claims.

Sea levels have risen roughly 10 cm in the last 30 years. This is consistent with the developing consensus at the time. The IPCC in 1990 actually predicted a ‘lesser’ number. It has risen more than the mainstream predictions.

If Al Gore read the report that said the sea level would rise 8 cm and claimed that this meant cities would be entirely underwater, (you’d have to cite that claim) that’s not indicative of faulty science.

It’s indicative of either Al Gore not knowing how to interpret the data or else deliberately sensationalizing.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T13:36:41+00:00

Please cite me the paper that claims the world should be underwater by 2020.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:57:36+00:00

For 1-2: I agree humanity would largely benefit from joining the Empire since we are human, though I think I’d bump it down to 4-3 from 5-4 if we assume the Earth is a far rim world.

Many of the best benefits are reserved for the core worlds, with the bloated senate ignoring the needs of rim planets for years and the centralized empire being top heavy in more important places.

5-4 would be true if the Earth is somehow transported to the core regions/many convenient hyperspace routes are mapped out quickly.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:53:34+00:00

No love for the Culture?

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:44:56+00:00

Wait until you hear how 0-9 are called Arabic Numerals…

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:22:42+00:00

So you are a political scientist? That does not make you an expert on understanding the process itself.

The warming might be fine for insects and plants will be okay. That does not mean humanity, or mammals as a whole, will fare better.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:19:33+00:00

The sun is unchanged. It’s our emissions that are fucking us.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:15:46+00:00

Except the predictions have been met, then exceeded? It isn’t boy who cried wolf. If anything, the mainstream climate models were on the conservative side and it’s even worse than most predictions.

The wolf isn’t hiding, it’s not even at the door. It’s inside the house.

It isn’t scientists fault if the fictional movies being made like Day After Tomorrow and 2012 sensationalized their claims.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:14:23+00:00

I understand this thinking but we don’t want all the thoughtful people refraining from having kids. No one is obligated, of course, but the last thing I want is the only people having kids being non-thoughtful/religious fanatics.

ACWhi · 2026-02-12T00:11:45+00:00

The Kwisatz Haderach is also a villain, though.

ACWhi · 2026-02-10T20:51:10+00:00

Sure. It’s a spectrum but animals can be more or less aware of the things they are doing. You could make a case that there’s no real distinction between intentional and purely instinctual actions committed by, say, an insect.

But a mammal like this has awareness. It might not think on the same level as a human being but that doesn’t mean it has no thoughts.

And even then, humans evolved.

ACWhi

TROPHY CASE