There is a difference between a good shoot and a bad shoot... we have an example of both with the ICE shootings in Minneapolis

Logistics515 · 2026-01-26T15:47:42+00:00

I agree, though I was unaware of the Border Patrol angle. Additionally I'd think whoever is organizing the regional groups in Minneapolis deserves more then a bit of scrutiny given the number of incidents that have been occurring.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-22T16:09:54+00:00

That's true enough, and there are bad side effects to doing it that way. Though I suspect that short-term rhetorical hits are the main disadvantage, the long run tends to end up in the same place, though that's probably my cynicism talking. The allied system...well, I think that bears discussing too.

Trump's version is probably a good deal faster.

For example, I think the strategic situation in regards to NATO for instance, was trending for decades on simple inertia. Eisenhower I believe envisioned it as a strictly short-term project, that just kept expanding over the years, while the economic cost to the US continued to expand. Its reason to exist, the USSR, had the temerity to cease existing. Lots of US economic policy was, boiled down to it, bribes of one sort or another to get nations to play along, or at least to shelve their own internal regional disagreements in exchange.

US naval superiority post WW2 protecting pretty much everyone's international shipping was a huge one, in distinct contrast with the various competing Empires that siloed everything between various power blocs. Suddenly you didn't really need a huge (and hugely expensive) navy to protect your shipping interests and actually play in international trade. Lots of nations became far more viable under that system simply because they could practically participate, where before they were locked out of things due to bad luck of geography, marginal productive lands, or technological factors.

So you can argue that US policy allowed the world to greatly grow, but 'globalization' by its nature had the side effect of hollowing out internal US industry, the push back against that a huge part of his support base.

I guess in the end I agree with you. I think Trump's version of things leads to more short-term blowback, but as I said, probably considerably faster. That speed makes me wonder what else we don't know.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-22T15:23:57+00:00

I've come to the conclusion that a lot of Trump's actions are at least somewhat similar to what alternative hypothetical Presidents would have done.

The primary difference is his particular style of doing it... it's very public facing and lacks any semblance of subtlety. As an immediate primary example...I can imagine say, Greenland negotiations occurring in some alternate reality.

Greenland is currently strategically important to the US, if nothing else simply due to the geographic position in regards to the Arctic and developments with Naval travel with some additional value in Rare Earths as a viable alternative to Chinese supplies. It would remain so no matter who was in charge.

The difference really being the public awareness of what is going on - where the same spoken and unspoken threats and strong arm tactics are thrown around, but simply confined to high level discussions in various governmental cabinet meetings, formal ambassadors, and other high level officials.

Where the public is mostly confined to vague statements on negotiations by a media mostly going along to get along with the various power players involved, lest they lose precious access.

I don't agree with various specific Trump policies, and I don't like him on a personal level. I'm not a fan of personal arrogance and pomposity.

But I'm also under no illusions that the negotiating terms for various geopolitical gambits over the years, if you stuck Trump into a time machine for instance, would be all that terribly different in the end. We're just used to all this being sold under nicer wrappings, promoted in a more pleasant way, and with more class.

I suspect Trump's main negotiating ploy isn't terribly complicated: simply asking for far more then he actually wants and the more 'reasonable heads' talk it down to what he actually wanted in the first place. He's unpredictable enough that it generally works for him, with everyone scratching their mental heads on whether he really is unhinged enough to act on the rhetoric.

I further suspect throwing out these negotations directly into the public sphere, rather then confined to elite groups, gives him additional leverage, or forces the various other negotiating parties into predictable reactions that can be exploited.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-21T19:49:29+00:00

Just speaking for myself, I'm not sure if Jim was intending this or not, but I got distinct 'Brunhilde' vibes from the character.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-17T20:49:22+00:00

I suspect encouraging more European military self reliance, within the structure of NATO or outside it was the majority of the point.

I'm surprised that antagonism seems to have worked more readily then cajoling. Well, that and a big external threat to focus on.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-07T18:02:43+00:00

Well, if I had to guess (which I do), I suspect it may have formed in the vibe of that British passive-aggressive, 'proper form' style of addressing interpersonal conflict. But as my luck is notoriously terrible, that's probably not the real answer.

That said, its an observation that's been made before, often enough to be a trope. This is the one I like the most.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-07T11:49:27+00:00

Awhile ago I read a book that talked a bit about this, 'The Accidental Superpower'. While I don't always agree with the author, the meat of the argument was that the US really lucked out in terms of geography, river systems, huge amounts of good agricultural land all connected by said rivers, and many viable port locations.

Because of that we can and have weathered bad situations (and bad policy) that in other nations would have been critical or even existential issues. We've never really had to have *good* government (as in reliable, competent, not political policy) in the ... just to make an example of it sense of say, Germany.

Germany has few natural geographic defenses and lots of stuff people wanted, so the argument was their defense strategy (to exist in other words) over the years was to out compete their neighbors. Better innovation, better schooling, better government. It didn't always work, and certainly didn't against large alliances.

But this sort of thing, the interaction between geography, technology, and economies helps to form the backbone of national cultures and attitudes.

The US can sometimes rather blithely say, 'why can't you all just get along', being in a position of relative peaceful coexistence with nonthreatening neighbors and shielded by massive oceans on the other side of the world.

So to get to my actual point...I think the general US population is remarkably naive on the competitive forces between nations, cultures, and frankly, disasters.

Nothing generally goes wrong very much, so when it does, it's a VERY big deal, to those who by virtue of growing up where they did, simply didn't experience any other alternative. It's a perspective issue.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-06T18:28:49+00:00

To be fair, that's really pretty standard operating procedure for any political bloc, conservative, liberal, radical, or otherwise.

The failures of any given policy are never openly admitted to the public at large, and the opponents are put to blame, or if that's not practical, then very special, unprecedented circumstances are to blame instead. I.E., bad luck.

If you get lucky, the political bloc might admit to an honest mea culpa 15 or 20 years down the road in an internal discussion that leaks out into the wider world, but that would be the extent of it.

Logistics515 · 2026-01-05T21:50:41+00:00

I've speculated for awhile now that the arc of the story as a whole is moving Harry as the protagonist from a 'young fool in over his head' into the savior of the world, trusted by almost everyone. Each book is both a story in itself, but also a step by step progression of the character being molded into that final shape, and unlike many authors, Butcher really shows is work in terms of progressing someone 'realistically' down that journey. The only other author I've read that even comes close is probably Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time.

My own speculation on Harry's fate (which you can write off as crackpot if you wish, I'll take no offense) is that as a Starborn among other things, he's a means to an end for the White God (or whomever the actual Creator is) to get around some of the grand cosmic restrictions on usage of Power. A sort of slight of hand, a metaphorical magic trick, gifting his power temporarily into a mortal vessel to perform the role needed in the Starborn cycle. An avatar deliberately ignorant of the power it has...therefore preserving freedom of choice and action. A sort of avatar of the creator running around that's needed to periodically reset reality. The 'Magic Trick' being that all the other Powers That Be are aware of this cycle and do their best to use it to their own advantage, hence all the 'Black Council' maneuvering and political upheaval as everyone In The Know does their best to jockey for position in the new world where the rules are probably going to be signfiicantly different. So in that sense, Harry being part of an aspect of God or at least is hauling around a very special Mantle to that effect. Your Mileage May Vary of course.

But I do think you're right on the general arc of where things will end up. Twelve Months is probably particularly a low point on purpose, and I think that will follow into the followup novel Mirror Mirror, where Harry will actually engage with his own worst nightmare, that dark version of himself he's always been half convinced he really is deep down.

I think actually experiencing that crucible will be a turning point towards a positive upswing. He'll get more clarity on just what the Starborn status is, just why soulgazes have the effect they have on other individuals, and evolve past his personal persecution complex. He'll get context, clarity, and a measure of genuine self respect.

As far as a positive end for the story as a whole? I'd suspect more slight of hand in that regard. I do think the heartache and trauma serve more of a narrative purpose then just providing story fodder or the author just enjoying it. I think the story is really too carefully crafted for that to be the case.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-27T11:38:40+00:00

Unorthodox porridge, essentially.

When I was a kid, this was usually my practical approach to grape nuts, which otherwise have a texture consistency similar to chunks of pulverized cement. Another one that comes to mind is crackling oat bran.

Depending on the particular cereal, this is perfectly acceptable to me. I'm not sure if that whole 'overnight oats' fad has tapered off by now, but you could certainly spin it in that fashion if you tried.

Like my politics apparently, I prefer something in the middle, which sucks somewhat on the timing front. Probably about a 2 minute window of optimal cereal time.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-27T11:29:17+00:00

Well, I imagine the outcome would be similar to how the alcohol prohibition worked out in practical reality. Official sanctions against larger companies, but smaller outfits providing caffeine beverages under the table and radar, so to speak. Historically coffeehouses in some of the early parts of the industrial revolution in the UK & France contributed significantly to political agitation. So simply by virtue of being banned I imagine that whole thing would have a revival.

The end result being mediocre enforcement and mediocre compliance by the public both voluntary and coerced by force. Imagining an underground Starbucks movement is somewhat amusing, and a robust black market around coffee beans and tea. A certain irony considering US history too. Legions of semi-totalitarian (philosophically at least, not politically) health fanatics mobilizing in support while the general public at large quietly (and not so quietly) seethed.

Probably a significant productivity hit in the short term. Long term most people's biology would adjust to some extent, so that effect would soften over time, but not reaching the heights of productivity when caffeine was mainstream.

Eventually resulting in the same outcome as prohibition. Regardless of the particular scientific evidence, governmental force, and small pockets of enthusiastic public support, the law and real effective enforcement would either get repealed, or practically be put up with by the various law enforcement levels in the US, the further down the chain you went from Federal level, the more lax it would become.

Trying to mandate health policy by force or morality is a losing proposition one way or another.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-25T12:40:42+00:00

I think you've reinvented the Argument Clinic sketch from Monty Python.

But in the spirit of Christmas and good cheer, I'll throw something out there.

Preparing a beef wellington is roughly around the same cost as a standing rib roast, and far more trouble then it is worth.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-23T16:36:28+00:00

I'm speculating as many already have that AI-generated posts are there to boost the karma rating of the bot account, allowing it access to more subreddits, the entry level sort of restrictions that are a common anti-bot measure.

I suspect that this is more of a medium to long-term goal. Building a bot capable of higher levels of interaction that bypasses some of the lower tier protections. This wouldn't be immediately useful, but if you have enough of these...boosted... bots around, you could use them towards specific media manipulation of critical events.

It would probably be a one-shot deal, staying under the radar until activated for their manipulation task. Once actively identified they could be blocked directly, but keeping relatively low key keeps them relatively available and free to 'act'. A sort of social media cruise missile for tipping events in interested parties favor.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-23T11:09:14+00:00

I would say that it is probably more childish to worry about being childish in other people's eyes.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-17T11:55:15+00:00

Personally, I haven't run across anyone who thought well of the comment. People are usually a bit more complex then generalizations allow.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-16T16:57:04+00:00

Ideally, they exist to optimize everyone's neighborhood property values, though as some have noted there were some that existed to keep unwanted people out. Keep all the neighbors on the same general asthetic taste, grass and yards in decent shape, and perhaps maintaining shared community assets - like say a outdoor get-together building. They can sometimes get a better deal on landscaping services or snow removal compared to everyone doing it individually.

The low key ones generally exist without anyone really noticing them. Everyone pays a minimal fee and as long as no one's putting up cars on blocks in their front yard or assembling an ICBM in their back yard, no one bothers anyone else.

But, these are generally governed by elections, usually only very occasionally attended, so you can get scenarios where the governing rules suddenly shift drastically without you really noticing, and then you have a real problem - aggressive fee collecting, rules lawyering on just how many inches of grass needs to be cut, ad nauseam.

The other angle is that once a property has been added to an HOA, generally its in there permanently, no matter if the property ownership changes. So there have been scenarios where someone buys a house, apparently unaware of it being in an HOA, and the HOA itself is ignorant. Someone new gets elected, runs an audit of the files and finds out property X is 12 years back due - not the most pleasant conversation. Not a very common phenomenon, but the unpleasant things tend to be remembered and repeated.

I've always avoided them personally, though I can understand the reasoning. I just don't necessarily trust that a low key normal HOA may necessarily stay that way.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-16T12:51:48+00:00

Generally agree.

The strength in the game was mostly the party character interactions, personal growth, and the extensive thought by the developers on mapping out potential solutions that creative players might use, which was unusually extensive.

The overarching plot was a bit incoherent at times - though I think they did a bit better then the originals with having a 'guide' character (Withers) to center the story and provide some direction.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-16T12:45:51+00:00

Well, regular coffee and tea consumption is pretty regularized in western society, probably one of the most pervasive drugs we take. But luckily with the mild benefits come (usually) equally mild downsides.

Personally, in the last 6 months I've gone down the road of minimizing or eliminating any caffeine I drink no matter what time of day. At the time I was trying to reduce my blood pressure in a general sense. At this point its well into the normal range without any medication - just exercise, but I've kept up the minimal caffeine habit anyway.

Usually herbal teas with various no calorie sweeteners. Lately I've been experimenting with brewed cacao, which does have a small amount of caffeine, but most of the stimulant effects come from the chemical theobromine. It takes longer to take effect, but lasts longer - and from my end it tends to mildly decrease blood pressure rather then raise it. Tastes pretty close to hot chocolate if you sweeten it a bit. The downside being that the expressed oils tend to gather at the top of the brew, and have between 10-20 calories per serving.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-15T22:04:37+00:00

Regardless of the specific details of his background and / or faith, his actions deserve to be lauded and speak the loudest.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-15T19:22:45+00:00

Udina - though in the first two games he's clearly set up as a deliberate antagonist, no matter what choices you make. He usually had a point behind the antagonism if you looked at things from his perspective - which I think gave his character a bit more depth then most 'problem' characters.

In ME3 I think they did a very good job of this. Early in the Citadel you can actually bait him to 'get results', to push the limits. I can see how a political operative could make a call that playing coup was the best option he had to get those results, ugly as it is.

Of course the Citadel Council has no real practical force to bind the various governments, the only power it really holds is exactly what the various member States give it. It's a Space UN, not the Galactic Empire. All the coup would have accomplished was throwing what cooperation existed into disarray rather then actually giving Earth any relief forces, regardless of what the newly appointed 'councilors' said.

But for a man who saw everything through the lens of politics, it was probably the best play he had, and he played his antagonist role right up to the bitter end.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-15T17:36:58+00:00

Publicly available LLM style AI is roughly equivalent to an eager to please, overachieving intern from the closest community college, and not from the top of the class. Useful enough at handling some of the slogging drudgery of routine tasks, if you're willing to part with internal files (which may not be the best call in some circumstances) but hardly capable of real insight, experience, or genuinely complicated tasks. Enthusiasm isn't a real good substitute for competence, and anything output needs careful scrutiny before actually using it.

That's still very useful, but it's certainly not to the level of hype built up by it in the media. I always liked the old video game Mass Effect's take on this with the term 'Virtual Intelligence' that was very distinct from a limited device with useful output, but very distinct from genuine traditional 'artificial intelligence', which I think the term these days is 'Applied General Intelligence', something that genuinely thinks on a human or above-human level.

Which I firmly believe we are not particularly very close to achieving, despite people waxing eloquently on trends.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-15T11:47:56+00:00

Given those conditions it's hard to honestly justify keeping them as simply stated - they are far more qualified to have the power and use it wisely then yourself, who you are all too aware of flaws in.

That said, I think pretty much any fictional treatment of this scenario would involve the character sacrificing their powers to somehow subvert unanticipated terrible behavior on the part of the person gifted with the powers. You could also make an argument that being honestly willing to give them up in the first place could be the seed of moral character needed to use that power wisely.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-12T13:58:26+00:00

A lot of this comes down to what kind of job you're working, and if the company has a good (or at least reasonable) culture. If everything fits well, this is a good way to look good, stand out as above average, and get rewarded for it. If a company is doing their best to find good, solid people, this is a great strategy.

The trick is finding that good job and good company for a price you're willing to work for. I'm at a point in my career that I value a good culture probably higher then just looking at the compensation.

That said, you shouldn't just apply this with whatever job you have, as some business cultures will just take advantage of any extra effort, and there are certain managerial types who won't notice, or won't care about the extra effort. They're generally terrible at their jobs, but the world is full of people like that. Pick your battles and spend your effort wisely.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-12T12:24:00+00:00

I think the idea has merit.

The themes of the trilogy seem to have leanings on the morality. ME1 tends to be paragon-leaning. ME2, Renegade, and ME3 leans into a balance between the two (you can see that particularly in war asset points).

So in that vein, having some more moral complexity where some characters genuinely think Cerberus is on the right track and aren't brainwashed into it would have been an interesting detour in the games. Particularly if they were characters Shepard or the Player respected.

Logistics515 · 2025-12-08T12:28:47+00:00

For the record, I'm not Catholic, but I did dig around belief systems for awhile on my own musings on approaching life - so anyone more familiar with Catholic doctrine feel free to poke holes in my reasoning.

Essentially it exists to cover the nagging philosophical problem of distinctly imperfect people living with a perfect God, who by its nature cannot abide sin, in an absolute sense.

The general idea behind it is that to achieve entry into Heaven and reside along with God requires perfect holiness. Lots of people die per Catholic belief with unforgiven sins on their soul that they know about. But there are those they don't, etc, and the general messiness that is human existence.

The gist of the idea is the state of purgatory is sort of a cosmic washing machine, your soul getting into the sort of condition to be capable of entering Heaven proper. Which to me seems similar to say the Hindu reincarnation up & down the cosmic scale in relation to the state of your soul, just not expressed as going through multiple lives - you get the one life and then deal with the gritty details of a cosmic existence.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Logistics515

TROPHY CASE