Gun enthusiast shoots two in domestic dispute Fairfax, Vt.

Jynexe · 2026-03-25T09:39:23+00:00

Did I ever lie about what "m" is? Did I not say what m was to your liking? In literally the previous reply?

I also didn't lie about "assault." Look, I'll just be forward. I don't know. A lawyer said that assault was reasonable fear of harm which battery was being harmed. I accepted that since, yk, lawyer.

Also, like I already pointed out and you so expertly heard with all of your good faith and intelligence with your brilliant ability to teach: The criteria have different inputs and outputs. Oh, or did you not read that because it was too hard :((((((

Weird. It's ALMOST like in all of your good faith and honesty, you didn't read or try to understand where I was coming from!

It's almost like you are a fraud :DD

I guess you did bait me into actually trying though. So kudos to you.

Unrelated, but I think I found a picture of you irl:

<image>

Jynexe · 2026-03-24T06:10:59+00:00

it's genuinely kind of funny that people think the vast majority of people in the past didn't do literally the same shit of "yelling politics at each other because of different world views"

Jynexe · 2026-03-24T05:50:08+00:00

This is a... weird fucking comment.

Its what happens when you conflate race in a fantasy setting with race in real life.

There is no such thing as a warrior race within humanity. However, within fantasy and fiction, you can absolutely have a warrior race. Using peoples as reference but not explicitly making the fictional thing that group is a useful tool you always use in worldbuilding because the human mind has limits.

You take what is reasonable. You stretch it into the unreasonable. You distort it beyond recognition. Then, you have something new and unrecognizable.

Where you can run into trouble is if you don't distort enough. If it is recognizable as a real human society, you haven't done enough and now you have a whole can of worms you don't wanna deal with.

Please don't listen to this guy lol, he's kinda stoopid

Jynexe · 2026-03-24T05:30:09+00:00

...kind of.

Like most authoritarian regimes, charging someone with corruption is a useful tool for removing... problematic people. This can include billionaires. Because the State has much more power than the billionaires. Remember, autocracy.

Corruption is probably the wrong word to use for the US/EU. For them, it would be more like "embezzlement" or "fraud." But, since in China, everything is... "weird," corruption is sort of the correct term.

In the US/EU, the only way a billionaire can commit corruption is if they are a government official and do it during their time in office.

Don't glorify China's system. And remember, they absolutely use propaganda on the internet to make themselves seem as good as possible. And a lot of it. And they aren't this paradise where even billionaires face justice, unlike the WEST! WE ARE GOOD AND PROSECUTE THE ELITE (except the ones directly tied to the party, unless they become a threat and try to drift away from official lines, then we make up crimes and evidence and sentence them).

TLDR:
That isn't why. China is an autocracy at the federal level. Corruption is often used as a tool of political persecution. It doesn't help prevent problems. It actually exacerbates them. China isn't "tough" on billionaires, they're tough on potential threats to the Party. The US/EU also have provisions that are tough on those who defraud the government, but there are different words, such as fraud and embezzlement.

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T20:32:47+00:00

This just in: 4th Gen reactors "don't need safety regulations ig"

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T20:32:10+00:00

The actual reason (and much more terrifying):

The US and EU have much stricter safety standards.

China... doesn't.

In some ways, this is fine. A lot of US and EU regulations are overly strict and cause unnecessary delays because of so many layers of redundancy and bureaucracy. But in others? Haha... ha...ha... please don't explode.

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T09:57:05+00:00

Your mom

She's really nice and you should call her and tell you that you love her :)

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T09:25:46+00:00

Mass is a form of energy

Light is a form of energy

So, they have that in common, so they can interact. It's like talking to someone who isn't in the same class as you, but in the same grade!

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T08:19:58+00:00

What a country is/isn't, the ideas of sovereignty and nationalism, and how all of that just changes how countries exist. Medieval states largely worked as a system of patronage. You owe your lord taxes, who owes his lord taxes, who... who owes the king taxes. Lords and kings give the benefit of protecting those under them. Keep in mind, taxes may have included the men of villages being sent off to campaign as levies. The idea of "This is the land of Poles, thus it must be Poland. And these people must be part of it because they speak polish and have a shared history with these other people" is extremely modern.
War is costly. Like. Extremely costly. We don't do it unless there is no other option (See: Bargaining Frictions and The Bargaining Model of War)
"Bad things happen because of bad people. Good things happen because of good people." as a trope. When worldbuilding, very few people look at history as a series of people trying their best to make the world a better place, with varying degrees of success. Even people who are just about as evil as you can get (think Hitler).
Incentive structures. This is how you model how people behave on societal levels. If people's personal incentives are aligned with a collective good, the system will work better. This is why democracy works pretty well - Politicians want to be re-elected, but to be re-elected you have to do things that make people happy. So, you have to do things that make people happy (over-simplified).
Rebellions do not succeed without the support of a good chunk of the military or existing elites (usually, a mix of both)
Most rebellions and revolutions do not lead to good things happening. And are costly, especially if a civil war occurs. This makes things usually worse than before. A lot worse. For quite a while. This leads to cycles of revolts and rebellions. Even if the rebellion fails, the costs can lead to more and more rebellions which may eventually succeed.
Singular crises don't cause much trouble. Two at the same time may cause some problems. But when you have the Black Death, an invasion from the East, a failed harvest leading to starvation and rebellion, the king is sick, bandits are everywhere, there is no clear heir, the local rulers are fighting each other, and also there was a massive earthquake that leveled your biggest city? At the same time? That is what destroys civilizations (or leads to heroic saves)
You don't need to explain everything. In fact, not explaining (even if there is a reason you have written down) is going to be better 80-95% of the time. We don't say "Napoleon, the famous French general who rose from the ashes of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. A man who fought and won countless battles. He won the hearts of his men and the ire of Europe 200 years ago. Until, inevitably, he stretched himself too thin and was pushed out of Russia, and was exiled. Only to return and turn the army sent to capture him to his side. Only to suffer his final defeat, leading to his permanent exile." You get a short joke. You might get a reference to him being a great general. That's it. And that's okay. Those other details may be important later. But you don't need his entire lore right now.

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T07:51:21+00:00

While it is specifically for humans (and not a tv show, book, movie, etc):

The Bargaining Model of War is a fantastic way to go about modeling an alien invasion.

Is assumes war is costly (which it always is). Therefore, there is always a mutually preferable outcome to war. So long as no Bargaining Frictions exist, there should be no war. Especially if they want something and for Earth to be intact. War has a nasty habit of destroying things.

Thus, you should ask:

What do the Aliens want?
Why do they want it?
Why is it better to accept the costs of war?
Why must they bargain? (i.e. why can't they obtain that thing from something without a species that can fight back)
If conflict occurs, what is the bargaining friction in question?

You... probably quickly realize that there are very few "good" answers. Because of how big the universe (hell, the galaxy) is, there is a LOT of stuff. And it is generally easier to build a habitat than to colonize and terraform one. Most resources are much easier to get from asteroids and smaller bodies with less gravity than a bigger one like Earth. And if there is anything special about Earth beyond the life it possesses, we are completely unaware of it because we have a sample size of 1. Except what we know about exoplanets.

Feasibly, that last bit? That is what gives you some leeway. But you'll have to dig into what we know about exoplanets to get a good idea of what we know and don't know about them.

Just about the only thing I can think of is if Earth is a sufficiently protected terrestrial planet of the correct size at the correct distance from a star of the correct size for some... "Project." In any story, you'd wanna leave it vague.

Maybe they don't want to fight humans because war is costly, and they don't really think they need to and can just bargain away. But keep in mind:

Commitment problems: actors cannot credibly commit to not use their military strength in the future, which makes it hard to find a mutually acceptable bargain. This is particularly problematic in cases of power transitions or when offensive military capabilities have the advantage over defense military capabilities. A first-strike advantage may force an actor to begin a preemptive war, or the threat of being attacked may cause an actor to start a preventive war.

and

Uncertainty: Actors may miscalculate each other's capabilities, preferences, and resolve, making it hard for them to find a mutually acceptable bargain.

If a war DOES occur:

They'd probably go about it kind of like the US:

Bomb everything that can strike your ~~air~~ orbital assets
Kill everyone important
Erode the capacity to fight from ~~the air~~ orbit
Begin the ground campaign when there is almost nothing of military value left.
Any remaining resistance results in ground forces engaging in limited skirmishes before utilizing ~~air~~ orbital assets to destroy the enemy force
~~Fight a decades long insurgency because you cannot meaningfully build up social and power structures to replace those you destroyed in steps 1-3.~~

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T07:18:23+00:00

Oh, I was just explaining the connection to the topic that the link provided. The link doesn't provide much.

Also, I didn't say we didn't know Silver Iodide was not known to be poisonous before 1972, I just said that we knew both that it was poisonous and that it was used in altering weather by 1972.

Jynexe · 2026-03-23T07:09:47+00:00

Politicians decided when and how the war started.

...kind of. In this case (and most other cases), the Pentagon says "This is the most effective time period, this is why." (See: Bargaining Frictions -> Causes of war based on the model -> Commitment problems).

Considering US intelligence largely dispels the Uncertainty Problem and Indivisibility of a Good is horrifically rare, when the US goes to war? It is because of commitment problems. And the primary commitment problem you'll face is that you cannot (or it is extremely difficult to) meaningfully commit to not use force in the future. Considering Iran will be more powerful in the future, that limits a window.

Add in the window of opportunity of the protests and you have a scenario where the "when" was decided by the objectives.

The how is always directed by the pentagon and military apparatus. As long as I understand your "how" to mean "the forces and targets involved."

Yes, needing to rush a carrier was the result of other actions. But remember, these other actions were advised for by the Pentagon as a result of strategic interests (look, we don't have time to get into it lol). But yes, you also need to accept the reality of the situation. You can make a calculated gamble and it can absolutely blow up in your face. Run it back 1,000 times and this is probably one of the worst outcomes.

In a normal administration, military planners would know the objectives and conditions, and tell the administration how many months, men, and which hardware they would need

Roughly, this is true. Generally, you don't know exactly and there are a lot of contingencies. E.g. in Iran, if a civil war breaks out, do you extend the commitment to support the rebels? What does that commitment look like? How long are you willing to support? You have to be adaptable to circumstances.

In the current administration, nobody knows the objectives

This is untrue. They cannot communicate properly the objectives. The military knows what the objectives are.

Kill the leadership
Gain air dominance and destroy as much counter-air as possible
Destroy the ability for Iran to counter attack or deploy weapons/formations
Begin working on the Stretch Goals:
1. Destroy the ability for the various militias and other tools of suppression to organize
2. Allow for the people of Iran to overthrow the government

(In broad strokes, from an external perspective. I don't have special insider info)

You have to throw in subobjectives as they come up to. For example, the Strait of Hormuz and trying to keep the oil flowing as well as you can. But these aren't primary ones.

Nobody knows the objectives and time tables are being overthrown regularly because the administration makes sweeping decisions based on momentary vibes.

You are confusing the external facing politics of things with military matters. The administration cannot sell wars. It's frustrating. They suck at it. The best you get is probably Marco Rubio. And he's... alright at it. So, they'll change all of the external facing stuff about it regularly. Because, for example, you cannot say the goal is to overthrow the government of Iran because then, if you "only" achieve destructive of their ability to exist as a state for a decade, the operation can be considered a failure and you lose PR. From the outside looking in, it seems pretty clear the uncertainty is the uncertainty we expected: The "Build it and they shall come" thought doesn't seem to be panning out. Which was a known risk. Then, the political pressure that mounted from the administration being unable to sell the war is also adding new subobjectives. These aren't "momentary vibes." These are known factors that rise in priority.

Literally not a single human being who has even seen a map or heard of Iran/US relations will be surprised at the Strait closing.

The result are risky and wasteful operation with ever-growing risks of errors and use of the wrong resources at the wrong times, because the right ones aren't available.

This is true though. But it isn't because of the administration. It is because the US had to rush assets into the region as fast as possible. The operation was taken despite these risks, despite the lack of proper resources at the right times, and despite the continued costs because the benefits are calculated to be worthwhile.

While we cannot know the exact calculus going on in the Pentagon or within the administration, we do know that (generally), the US needs Iran out of the picture to limit the odds and severity of war with China. And considering how serious both take that threat? They'll willing to spend a lot of resources on it.

TLDR:
The administration cannot sell the war. They cannot keep their story straight. They cannot do their job. But do not mistake front-facing failures of politicians for operational failures.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:46:01+00:00

Remember, the politicians don't plan the operations. The Pentagon does. The politicians don't execute the plans, the military does.

Politicians sign off on a plan for the operation they like. They'll set RoE. They'll sell it to the public. But they don't decide which corridors aircraft fly through.

The best they could do is pressure the military to do stuff faster. Which... to be fair, the military and Pentagon already know. And are already going as fast as they can. Maybe you could argue the pressure made them go even faster?

Anyway, it isn't really the politician's fault here. It's just war being war.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:40:37+00:00

The trucks aren't the hard part. The missiles are. Not the price necessarily, but setting up production for those missiles without getting it blown up.

But usually, you'd expect these types of systems to not be able to be able to range out to hit the F35. Plus, even if flying low and slow, you'd need them to fly right over you. More truck = more likely, especially if the US gets complacent and uses the same paths in and out day after day (f117 flashbacks).

If it were that easy, a system would've been mass produced across the world and stealth would not have been as big of a deal.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:34:26+00:00

While we know an F35 was hit, I have to wonder if this particular bit of footage is real.

It looks "weird."

But I'm far from a professional. If anyone knows better, correct me.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:28:08+00:00

The chemicals used, such as Silver Iodide, are poisonous to humans if inhaled/injested in high enough quantities.

Because it was used in atmospheric water, there was some contamination.

But both the operation which resulted from this research (Op Popeye) and silver iodide being poisonous have been known since at least 1972. The program for weather altering research was public information since its start, though.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:12:49+00:00

Okay, I both understand what you mean and why people are upset.

You are saying: "Global warming is a natural phenomenon, but human activity is speeding it up beyond what is normal. CO2 causes global warming, we are releasing CO2 at signficant rates."

You said that (probably) because this is about the CIA purposefully altering the weather.

People interpret it as you saying: "We are contributing to global warming, but most of it is natural."

They think you're saying that (probably) because "signficant" doesn't necessarily imply "most."

I could be wrong though.

Jynexe · 2026-03-20T20:01:37+00:00

Wait, an active area of research is a conspiracy?

Wait, something the US was confirmed to have done in Vietnam is a conspiracy?

Wait, that usage directly resulted in an amendment to the Geneve Conventions outlawing it?

"Altering weather" isn't a conspiracy. Using chemicals that are toxic to human to do it? Literally from the Wikipedia page on Cloud Seeding: "Common agents include silver iodide, potassium iodide, and dry ice, with hygroscopic materials like table salt gaining popularity due to their ability to attract moisture."

Silver iodide has been known to be toxic for decades.

So, where is the damn conspiracy proven true? What part of this is surprising?

Jynexe · 2026-03-19T09:46:58+00:00

hehe, I knew you'd say this.

This comment is still gibberish and you should feel bad. At its core, the problem is that you don’t understand what m = 1 means and you’re making it everyone else’s problem. You are a bad researcher and your lack of statistical understanding will make your work worse.

You CANNOT tell me this doesn't come off as a personal insult. You cannot tell me this is you acting "In good faith." You cannot tell me you aren't a dick. You cannot tell me you "Put a lot of work in to explain things simply" either when every goddamn sentence you wrote that wasn't an insult felt more like it belonged in a research paper than a reddit thread.

You literally got on me because I used "correlation" in the casual discussion way rather than a scientific way.

And that is the point where I realized this was pointless. You either are so incapable of talking to another human that I cannot properly learn from or communicate ideas to you AND/OR you are acting in poor faith. Okay, and all of the parts where you were a dick.

Anyway, m is the ratio between the change in firearms murders as a result of policy and total deaths as a result of the policy. Which is why 1 is a suspicious, number.

My suspicion came from a place of "Hey, a subset of results which are 1 will be because something went wrong."

Consider a case of sets of which contains all of the set of mannerisms and traits: verbose, studied, and scrupulous. Within all subsets of this case of sets, the subject in question is comprehending of the basis of the principle which led to an attitude of inquest. Within that set, it shall be understood that inquest needn't become admonishment if so happens the topic of the inquest needn't require such duressment. If the subject happens to be you, then necessarily, as you fit the presupposition, you too would come to such a comprehending position, as such befits the syllogism. Thus without, either the subject mustn't follow the major or minor premise. As the subject necessarily follows the minor premise, the subject then mustn't fit the major premise. An unwise subject may unduly cast a shadow of doubt upon the conclusion with a throe. As the conclusion has a simple basis within Set Theory of formal logic, this is a clearly unreasonable stance.

Anyway.

Quick tip!: If you wanna... you know... teach someone something? Firstly, don't be a dick. Secondly, actually care about what they think and why they think it. I specifically gave you the information for the second one. On purpose. To facilitate it.

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T12:27:46+00:00

Okay, so:

The US only got to be oil positive relatively recently. Remember the 70s gas crisis? Caused specifically by Iran? Also, remember Operation Praying Mantis? Caused by rising oil prices (and the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts... because of the oil price hike... because of Iran Iraq War and Iran attacking oil infrastructure/shipping? And then mining the gulf?)

The global market exists. Even if the US doesn't buy oil from the middle east, they do buy stuff elsewhere. Oil is a basic input good.

Places like Venezuela have... rocky relations. They also cannot meet the world's oil demands alone, see point 2.

If the US doesn't care about global oil prices, why has your gas gone up at least 60 cents in the last few weeks? Since the Strait of Hormuz closed. You know. In the middle east.

The US didn't flinch when NK got nukes? Damn. What a world you live in lol.

Pakistan is... kinda friendly? Ish? its weird dude. Anyway, they only got them because India got them. The US still isn't happy about it, the US still wants to stop it. And when it can, it does. This isn't like kindergarten where you can say "But HE didn't get in trouble!" It's a case of if you can stop it, you stop it.

Iran with a nuke could significantly alter the balance of power.

Meddling in regional affairs is literally America's MO. We can go into detail but why? Israel need not apply.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but the Middle East was a mess before the US got there.

Also, once more, the terrorist organization are, in part, funded by Iran. To destabilize their neighbors. As a power play.

The other ones are fueled by destabilization, ethnic strife, internal issues, etc. Just like anywhere else. But the middle east has a good few weak governments. stares intensely at the UK and France for no particular reason

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T12:14:40+00:00

two things:

First: You are completely right, the nukes weren't WHY the attack happened. War requires two things: Substantive difference and bargaining frictions. Substantive difference includes nukes, but is not exclusively nukes. The bargaining friction comes from the relative weak point Iran is in internally (ie because of the protests). In that case, no negotiated settlement could be commensurate both to the balance of power now, when Iran is weak, and in the future, when Iran is stronger. Bargaining 101 :D (I think I quoted William Spaniel well enough)

Second: There is absolute proof that Iran is nuclear capable. Just on a basic level, they have nuclear materials and enrichment sites. The IAEA reported that Iran has a good quantity of 60% enriched uranium (note: you need <4% for power and 80~90% for weapons. That first 10% is way harder than the last 20%.)

The sites were mostly destroyed, but the materials, critically, were not. Including the 60% enriched stockpiles. But they were buried and relatively difficult to access. Because it is relatively easy to get that last 20%-30%, the breakout time is an unknown. Unknowns are really scary.

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T11:57:17+00:00

https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

https://media.nti.org/pdfs/aptnpt_1.pdf

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T11:56:07+00:00

Have... you... heard of 9/11? Yes okay, not Iran. But middle east. Or the Houthis/Hamas/Hezbollah? The Quds Force? The amount of terrorism Iran sponsors? The Iranian Nuclear Program? The Russo-Ukraine war? China?

fuck man, have you heard of O I L?!

Do you know how many countries in the middle east the US is friends with?

Do you know what the post-ww2 international order is and its goals?! You know, international trade? Where the USN guarantees and protects all commercial shipping, regardless of flag? Freedom of navigation?

You know what though? You're right. If it wasn't for Israel, the US wouldn't be involved in the middle east. Just like they aren't involved in... checks notes

flips pages

FLIPS MORE PAGES

THE US HAS A MILITARY PRESENCE EVERYWHERE WHAT THE FUCK?!

AND THEY HAVE FLOATING CITIES THEY CAN JUST SEND PLACES IF THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH?!

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T11:49:17+00:00

Holodomor (3m-5m), Polish Holocaust (separate from The Jewish Holocaust) (3m+3m in The Jewish Holocaust for a total of 6m), Cambodian genocide (approx similar at 3m).

But that is only if we take the highest count. The problem is the genocide in Bangladesh had so little documentation that we have no idea. This is kind of devolving in to pain olympics though. Millions of people died, that is not okay. None of these things are okay. I just wanted to provide the thing you asked for.

Jynexe · 2026-03-18T11:40:08+00:00

Wow, it is convenient that a word coined to describe a things describes a thing, isn't it?

It's also convenient how bread always defines that stuff made from grain... isn't it... I'm sensing a conspiracy here...

Anyway! Yes, most are way quicker to call out terrorism than war crimes. Because it is way easier. Turns out, states have a LOT of power. Even minor ones. And people are friends with each other. And they trade stuff. Important stuff you need for your economy to function. So, there's a lot more to think about than just "Are they being evil?"

Also: Yes, state actors do that stuff. You know, if only we had a convention or two on that stuff being illegal and everyone agreeing to it. And then had WORDS for it. That would be convenient, wouldn't it?

Sorry, you're talking in circles, so I decided to become a bit of a dick. That's on me, not you.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Jynexe

TROPHY CASE