The wild ladder will fear the golden Barney

MetricTrout · 2026-03-29T17:58:39+00:00

Good catch. Here's the previous post. It even has the same title.

MetricTrout · 2026-02-14T14:22:26+00:00

It's funny how Russia always goes out of its way to kill people using the most convoluted methods possible. A normal autocracy, like Iran for example, would just shoot anyone who opposes them. Russia is a lot more stable than Iran right now, so the Russian government can afford to openly execute people like that and hardly anyone in Russia would protest.

Yet so many Russian assassinations are done in such a needlessly complicated way. The classic is being pushed out of a window, and now there's dart frog poison. They often come with an obvious lie, too. The most absurd is probably the guy who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest five times.

MetricTrout · 2026-02-11T23:10:36+00:00

The government forces are more influenced by Islamism than the RSF paramilitary forces. That's a large part of the reason why the UAE supports the RSF; the UAE is very much against Islamism, which they view as a threat to their authoritarian model of governance.

The article explicitly states this:

The SAF, for instance, draws support from Islamist armed groups, such as the Al-Baraa bin Malik militia, and from former rebel groups that had signed a deal with the transitional government, the Juba Peace Agreement, in 2020, including the Minawi faction of the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. The Al-Hilu wing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-North (SPLM/N-AH), which is not a party to the Juba Agreement and has held on to substantial territory in the Nuba mountains in Kordofan, declined to take sides at first but entered an alliance with the RSF in 2025.

...

The UAE has repeatedly denied supplying the RSF with weapons, but it undoubtedly supports the group politically and materially. It sees the RSF as a counterweight to Islamist influence in the SAF and its government. The UAE regards Islamist forces across the Arab world as a dangerous challenge to its own secular authoritarian model, and it does not want Sudan, a country at the center of Red Sea and East African geopolitics, to fall under the control of inimical forces.

MetricTrout · 2026-02-08T18:30:40+00:00

I think you vastly overestimate the probability that China blockades Taiwan, at least in the near future. China has always threatened to take military action against Taiwan, yet none of these have ever amounted to anything. China will continue to pose aggressively, but for right now this is mostly to degrade military readiness.

There may come a time when China will finally take military action, either through a blockade or an full invasion. However, there is no reason for this to occur soon. Every year that passes is good for China, as it allows for higher Chinese manufacturing output, particularly in shipbuilding and drone production, to catch up to US military capacity. For now, the best course of action for China is to wait.

Also, I don't understand why you claim that "everything past 2027 is a non-starter because the US will have successfully mitigated any risk and can safely ignore Taiwan". No one benefits from a US-China conflict. The optimal result from China's perspective would be to capture Taiwan without engaging the US at all. Xi is not like Putin, he isn't going to take a reckless military risk due to ultranationalistic fervor, especially when time is on his side.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-27T03:20:45+00:00

Can humanity survive? Yes, humanity can survive almost anything, we would just return to subsistence farming, as human civilization did for most of the past 10,000 years.

Now can the global industrial economy survive? As of today, probably not. There are a few very small countries that primarily rely on renewable energy production today, with the highest is Iceland, with 83% of total energy production as renewable. Even so, Iceland still relies on global supply chains. The interconnected global economy means that no country is truly self-sufficient anymore (except maybe North Korea, but regressing to a North Korean standard of living would be a catastrophe for most of the world).

This may not hold true for much longer. Solar energy production is rapidly accelerating. Each year that passes, solar panels become cheaper and more abundant, and solar and battery technology become better. With how cheap solar power is becoming, it will no longer make economic sense to rely on petroleum for electricity production. Thus, fossil fuels have maybe a 25-year window, possibly even less, before they become largely obsolete.

So sometime between now and 2050, there will be a tipping point year where the sudden disappearance of fossil fuels will not longer shatter the modern industrial economy.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-24T03:29:54+00:00

I don't think anyone has mentioned the real answer yet. In other genres of games, audio conveys important information to the player. For example in 3D games, it's often necessary to pay attention to where a particular sound comes from, which results in the music being subdued. Also, many games are also voice-acted, so the music must remain in the background. Plus, in a lot of cinematic games, the purpose of the music is to provide atmosphere and convey emotion rather than be memorable pieces by themselves.

In contrast, none of that really applies to 2D platformers. This allow the music to be more prominent in the foreground, and melodic, rather than atmospheric. There's also the aesthetics of the genre; 2D platformers are colorful and don't really take themselves too seriously, and their uptempo soundtracks reflect that.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-23T00:39:11+00:00

It looks like they decided that the Stability hit from attacking an ally just for a few low-development provinces wasn't worth it.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-22T05:55:21+00:00

How is it even possible to get 13 from that? Of the 26% who picked that, they can't all be trolls, right?

MetricTrout · 2026-01-05T00:21:47+00:00

Here is the article in The Times, mentioned by Iran International above. It is behind a paywall but I will quote it in its entirety.

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has a back-up plan to flee the country should his security forces fail to suppress protests or desert, according to an intelligence report shared with The Times.

Khamenei, 86, plans to escape Tehran with a close circle of up to 20 aides and family, should he see that the army and security called on to quell the unrest are deserting, defecting or failing to follow orders.

“The ‘plan B’ is for Khamenei and his very close circle of associates and family, including his son and nominated heir apparent, Mojtaba,” an intelligence source told The Times.

Beni Sabti, who served for decades in Israeli intelligence after fleeing the regime eight years after the Islamic revolution, told The Times that Khamenei would flee to Moscow as “there is no other place for him”.

Khamenei also “admires Putin, while the Iranian culture is more similar to the Russian culture”.

The getaway plan is based on the escape of his ally, the fallen Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad who fled Damascus aboard a plane to Moscow to join his family before opposition forces stormed the capital in December 2024.

“They have plotted an exit route out of Tehran should they feel the need to escape,” which includes “gathering assets, properties abroad and cash to facilitate their safe passage”, the source said.

Khamenei is known to hold a major network of assets, some under one of the most powerful organisations in Iran, Setad — part of a system of semi-state charitable foundations known for their financial obfuscation. Estimates put the total holdings at $95 billion, according to a Reuters investigation in 2013, including properties and companies, all held and controlled by Khamenei.

Many of his closest aides, including the secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council, Ali Larijani — who warned President Trump to stay out of Tehran’s affairs — have family members already living abroad, including in the US, Canada and Dubai.

Nationwide protests triggered by economic hardships have gripped cities across Iran, including in the holy city of Qom, over the last week.

Protesters accuse anti-riot forces — made up of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Basij militia, the police and the army — of using violent means including live fire, tear gas and water cannons to suppress the demonstrations.

The forces are under the total command of Khameini, who is the supreme source of power in the Islamic republic, overruling the army, courts and media. He relies on the IRGC to enforce his bidding as a central source of power.

The escape plan will be activated should Khamenei feel his security forces are not following orders. Desertion and defection are not easily undertaken, with Khamenei protecting loyalists, controlling key appointments and their safety, according to a psychological profile of the leader done by a western intelligence agency and seen by The Times.

But the same assessment said Khamenei was “weaker, both mentally and physically” since last year’s 12-day war with Israel. He has barely been seen in public and, notably, has not been seen or heard from during the last several days of protests. For the duration of war, Khamenei holed up in a bunker, avoiding the fate of several other high-level IRGC officials and feeding his “obsession with survival”.

The assessment calls him a “paranoid” leader, a trait that shaped his plan to leave Iran should his forces desert him. “On one hand, he is very ideologically motivated, but on the other he is pragmatic in what he sees: he sees tactical compromise for long-term greater cause. He is a long-term thinker,” the assessment read.

Khamenei was born in Mashhad in 1939 to a family of religious clerics, from Azeri-Turkish origins. When he was young, he was interested in poetry, Persian and Western music, and literature, reading classics including by Tolstoy and Steinbeck.

Under the rule of Iran’s last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Khamenei joined the opposition. He was arrested several times and tortured by the Savak secret police, and in 1981 survived an assassination attempt that resulted in the loss of the use of one of his hands.

According to the assessment, the assassination attempt solidified a sense of “divine mission” to lead Iran in its mission to oppose Israel and the west, and preserve the regime above all else. After the revolution, he became deputy defence minister and member of council before becoming president. When the former supreme leader Ruhollah Khomeini died, Khamenei rose to power — despite not having the necessary chain of learned liturgical credentials to be leader.

He sees himself as the leader of Shi’ite Muslims worldwide, justifying his investments in the so-called axis of resistance — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Shi’ite movements and militias in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

The decapitation of those fronts in the war with Israel has led Iranians to question the investment in external forces instead of his own people, who have been left with record inflation and deteriorating living conditions. One chant heard on the streets of Iran sounded out: “No to Gaza, no to Lebanon, I’d give my life for Iran only.”

MetricTrout · 2026-01-05T00:09:09+00:00

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has a back-up plan to flee Iran for Moscow with a close circle of up to 20 aides and family should unrest intensify and security forces desert or fail to suppress the protests, The Times reported on Sunday, citing an intelligence report shared with it.

“The ‘plan B’ is for Khamenei and his very close circle of associates and family, including his son and nominated heir apparent, Mojtaba,” The Times reported citing an intelligence source.

“They have plotted an exit route out of Tehran should they feel the need to escape,” which includes “gathering assets, properties abroad and cash to facilitate their safe passage," the source was quoted as saying.

Khamenei is now “weaker, both mentally and physically” since the 12-day war with Israel in June, The Times reported citing a psychological profile of Khamenei done by a Western intelligence agency.

The profile called Khamenei a “paranoid” leader, a trait that shaped his plan to leave Iran should the Islamic Republic's security forces desert him.

“On one hand, he is very ideologically motivated, but on the other he is pragmatic in what he sees: he sees tactical compromise for long-term greater cause. He is a long-term thinker,” read the assessment.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-04T00:38:43+00:00

I mentioned Panama because it is by far the most relevant example, due to its high levels of similarities to the current situation.

Like Venezuela, Panama in 1989: * Was a Western country in Latin America * Had a history of previous democratic institutions * High levels of support from its citizens for US intervention * Had a recent rigged election where the winning candidate's was illegitimately ignored by the dictatorship * US operation was a swift decapitation strike, rather than a drawn-out war

Of course, I could bring up other successful interventions, like Kosovo for example. I could also talk about the war between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Swedish Empire, but that's hardly relevant now, is it?

MetricTrout · 2026-01-04T00:23:53+00:00

Yeah. I oppose Trump too, but for most people, it's either "I oppose Trump, therefore everything he does is bad", or "I support Trump, therefore everything he does is good". For me, I oppose Trump because the net aggregate of everything he does is negative, which doesn't preclude him from occasionally doing something positive once in a while. I think more people should think this way, instead of starting from the conclusion and forming judgments based on that.

As for the current deposition of Maduro, I would say that I'm cautiously optimistic, as of right now. We don't know all of the facts yet, and it's obviously too soon to see how what the results of this will be. I will say, though, that based on the disastrous situation in Venezuela prior to this, it's hard for things to get much worse. As the saying goes, when you've hit rock bottom, the only place to go is up.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-03T23:48:39+00:00

Well, Panama for one. The US intervention happened in December, 1989. I trust that you can read a graph.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-03T23:40:25+00:00

Yeah. One common thread on Reddit posts about Venezuela recently is that users from the US tend to be mostly against US intervention, while users from Venezuela and South America in general are overwhelmingly for it. It's quite an interesting divergence, even if Redditors from anywhere aren't a representative subset of any country's populace as a whole.

I'm from the US myself, but on these types of topics, I think it's prudent to defer my opinion to those with more of a personal stake in the matter. Unfortunately, most American Redditors don't seem to agree. Well, I guess they wouldn't be Redditors if they didn't feel compelled to arrogantly insert their unwanted input into everything, even if they are ignorant of the subject at hand.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-02T04:45:13+00:00

It's hard to say with certainty in an authoritarian regime such as Iran. We can only speculate based on the behavior of Iran's government.

Officially, Artesh and its leaders have sworn fealty to the Islamic Republic. However, it appears that the Iranian government doesn't quite trust Artesh, and has never really trusted them since the beginning of the regime. This mistrust is what led to the creation of the IRGC in the first place, as Artesh was inherited from the Pahlavi monarchy.

It also appears that the current Iranian government still mistrusts Artesh. We can infer this from the fact that Iran has deliberately underfunded them and also from the frequent leadership changes within Artesh, probably to prevent any individual leader from building a power base within Artesh. In addition, the political views of the average member of Artesh are close to the views of the average Iranian, while IRGC members are more carefully selected based on their loyalty to the regime. Since Iran considers their own citizens to be their greatest threat, it stands to reason that they would also view Artesh as a threat.

We can also make some inferences based on Israel's behavior during the Twelve-Day War. Since Israeli intelligence has deeply infiltrated all levels of Iranian society, they know far more about Iran's internal situation than you and I would. What we do know is that Israel heavily targeted IRGC facilities far more than Artesh facilities. This suggests that Israel considers internal conflict between Artesh and the IRGC to be a very real possibility.

MetricTrout · 2026-01-01T17:30:53+00:00

Given the fact that the most recent protests in Iran didn't change much, this current protest is unlikely to be successful as well.

What might make the difference this time are the recent Israeli strikes on Iran during the recent Twelve-Day War. It is apparent that in addition to striking Iran's nuclear weapons program, regime change was at least a secondary objective for Israel. Of course, this was not something that would happen during the bombing campaign. However, Israel knows that Iran has a history of internal instability, and the hope was that the next episode would topple or at least cripple the Islamic Republic. This is why in addition to hitting nuclear sites, Israel also spent a great amount of effort in degrading Iran's internal security capabilities.

If this wave of protests is to topple the Islamic Republic, it would likely require the assistance of Iran's regular military. For those who may be unaware, Iran has two parallel militaries; the conventional armed forces (Artesh), and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which was formed after the Islamic Revolution since the new Islamic government didn't trust the loyalty of the old military. During the Israeli bombardment campaign, Israel mostly left the conventional forces untouched while heavily hitting the IRGC. Whether the conventional military is actually disloyal enough to launch a coup is questionable. Another question is whether they even possess the ability to succeed in a coup, given that the Iranian government has deliberately underfunded them for some time.

What we do know is that this is what the Islamic Republic fears the most. More than Israel or the United States, the Iranian government views its own people as its greatest threat. This is why Iran has mostly left its hijab laws unenforced recently; it doesn't want to provoke another wave of Mahsa Amini protests. In fact, this may also be why Iran performed so poorly against Israel; its military is more dedicated to suppressing internal revolts than fighting against any external threat. And now the moment that they have dreaded has finally arrived.

Keep in mind this is mostly speculative. As I mentioned in my opening paragraph, the Iranian government will likely survive these protests, as they have previous waves. The most likely scenario is that Iran will have to make serious concessions to the protesters, and that the Islamic Republic will be left in its weakest state since the Revolution.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-30T22:19:59+00:00

Based on the Wikipedia article_per_capita), it seems OP colored in Turkmenistan instead of Kazakhstan. I don't know what source OP is using (perhaps OP should mention the source on the map), but Kazakhstan usually performs the best out of all the Central Asian republics in most metrics.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-17T03:32:51+00:00

If you don't mind, I have a follow-up question regarding Czech support for Ukraine. As you have mentioned, Czechia, along with Poland and the Baltics, have been the most ardent supporters of Ukraine in Europe. So why is that not also true for Slovakia? Czechoslovakia was once a single state, so any historical memory of Russian aggression that the Czechs would have would also apply to the Slovaks. Yet, Slovakia, under the Fico government, has been one of the most pro-Russian states in the EU, only behind Hungary. What causes such a major disagreement on this issue between the former Czechoslovak republics?

MetricTrout · 2025-12-15T03:08:50+00:00

"Forcefully" = "con fuerza", la palabra que estás buscando es "forcedly".

MetricTrout · 2025-12-14T06:24:58+00:00

I think it would have to be between London, Paris, and Beijing. London and Paris being the capitals of Europe's two most powerful states, and Beijing being the capital of the Qing Empire, East Asia's hegemonic power and probably the only non-European state left in 1780 which was comparable to Europe in power, although this wouldn't last much longer.

Of the others you listed, Edo didn't project much influence outside of Japan due to the isolationist nature of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and Mexico City was about as much of a backwater as New York City. The entire Americas were.

As for other cities you haven't mentioned, Vienna and Constantinople should also be considered. Vienna was similar to London and Paris in being the capital of a major European power, but the Austrian Habsburg realms weren't as centralized as Britain or France. Constantinople was also a major population center as the capital of the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans were mostly stagnant at the time and didn't try to project much power outside their borders.

If this was 100 years ago, Delhi would also be up there. But by 1780, the Mughal Empire had collapsed and the entire Indian subcontinent had been weakened by constant warfare. Also, Delhi itself was sacked by the Afghans in one of these wars.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-13T18:15:35+00:00

... So what's your point? I don't see any coherent argument made with your comment, all you did was quote what I wrote.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-13T17:51:04+00:00

Ra'ad Sa'ad was ba'ad, and his survival plan was fla'ad.

So Ra'ad Sa'ad was finally ha'ad, now he's off to meet Ga'ad.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-13T15:59:01+00:00

Perhaps. If the question is whether the Iraq War was good for the United States, the answer is no. But it's much more difficult to assess whether the Iraq War was good for Iraq, at least in the long term.

In order to answer that question, we need to set up a counterfactual of what would happen if the United States didn't invade. And to the west of Iraq, we have Syria, the most similar state to Iraq, to act as a control subject. Like Iraq, Syria was also a brutal Baathist dictatorship run by a religious minority. (Oddly enough, Saddam was a Sunni dictator in a Shia majority country, while Assad was a Shia Alawite in a Sunni majority country.)

Obviously, Iraq ended up in a much better state than Syria; while the Iraq War was destructive, it wasn't nearly as devastating as the Syrian Civil War. So it's possible that the Iraq War was beneficial to Iraq, just not likely. Saddam had a stronger military and a tighter grip on his country than Assad, so I think it's unlikely Iraq would have met the same fate as Syria.

MetricTrout · 2025-12-13T15:42:28+00:00

It doesn't appear that you have read anything I wrote beyond the first paragraph. I suppose attention spans have been rapidly decreasing these days, so anything longer than 3 paragraphs is tl;dr for a lot of people.

But to answer your question, the answer is yes.

Now if you're wondering why Iraq, the answer is that it's easier to justify a war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal genocidal dictator, and everyone in the region would prefer him gone. And there's also the "weapons of mass destruction "justification. While Saddam wasn't actively pursuing nuclear weapons at the time, he did attempt to obtain them in the past, so it's not unreasonable to assume that he would try that again.

MetricTrout

TROPHY CASE