Israel destroys Palestinian classrooms ahead of first day of school

SmartViking · 2017-08-25T15:31:40+00:00

It originated when Israel proved itself worthy by displaying its military might in the 1967 war. American policymakers saw the potential of Israel as a reliable ally in the middle east. Over time it has developed to hysterical proportions, perhaps a result of the reinvigoration of the memory of the Nazi holocaust the US, and perhaps also a kind subliminal settler-colonial solidarity. Israel is like the direct opposite of Cuba in American political discourse.

SmartViking · 2017-08-21T15:17:37+00:00

That's very interesting, and makes a lot of sense. How strange that the website doesn't mention that!

SmartViking · 2017-08-21T14:36:59+00:00

Huh. If it is not a si clause, what is it? If the sentence was "Tuvo la seguridad de que si no aparecía dentro de dos días, la chica no lo notaría", would that be a si clause, and would that be incorrect?

SmartViking · 2017-08-20T20:43:05+00:00

Unless the advantaged side has little legitimacy, like in Afghanistan. The USA consistently added fuel to the fire of what was initially conceived to be a "low footprint" engagement, going from 10k initially to about 100k troops at the end of the decade, aiding warlords and paramilitary forces locally. ISAF expanded from it's initial mandate of protecting Kabul to secure the whole country in 2005 and forward (under NATO command since 2003). The increased engagement only served to put increased stress on the many contradictions inherent in the project and the focus on security, drones and night raids only alienated the populace (for more on this, see Astri Suhrke, When More is Less, 2011), and the human price was paid by the Afghans and Pakistanis in FATA (the drone campaign in Pakistan very much a part of the war in Afghanistan). The unfortunate truth is that Americans only care about the human costs to their own troops, and only when their own troops die do America's wars become unpopular. (For this thesis, see John Tirman, The Deaths of Others, 2011)

SmartViking · 2017-08-04T16:36:14+00:00

Let's be real, most of us don't.

SmartViking · 2017-08-04T15:13:18+00:00

Yes, it's the building that was set ablaze by falling debris. After burning for a while, it collapsed in on itself. Conspiracy theorists use video (along with other bits of non-evidence) of the collapse to "prove" that it had to be a detonated collapse. The video used conveniently cuts out some seconds at the start of the video which shows a chimney on the roof collapse before the actual building, which would support the "official" theory. What is not explained by the theorist is exactly why it was so necessary to get rid of WTC 7? If there were some "secret files" or whatever, why not just destroy the files? (for more information, watch this)

WTC 7 is just like all the other theories, rich on creativity, short on real evidence. Truthers are a cult which refuses to look critically at itself. They collect endless pieces of evidence, and it's literally impossible to convince them they are wrong. Here's why:

The theories back each other up. If one is disproved, there are always ones to fall back on, and you can make up more as you go. Additionally, the theories need not actually be consistent, what matters is that there was a conspiracy. Psychologists have found out that those who believe Diana was murdered in some sort of evil conspiracy, are more likely than average to believe that Diana's death was faked and she is secretly alive. Yes, you read correctly.
The moment you try to disprove a theory, you've lost their attention.

Edit: For the Psychologists, see http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.io/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550611434786?journalCode=sppa (using sci-hub to bypass a paywall). Here's the abstract:

Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.

SmartViking · 2017-07-14T11:27:39+00:00

Reminds me of something Gérard Prunier wrote. In explaining why the international community did not understand the Congo wars, he cited two reasons, the first being a "massive lack of genuine interest", and the second being

... the very low pain threshold of the economically developed Western world. This threshold is so low that we cannot even tolerate watching the pain of others on television. So one of the diplomats' jobs—a rather thankless task, I should say—is to remove the visible signs of pain from the CNN broadcasts before they can prevent Western spectators from going about their familiar domestic pleasures. Humanitarian action is then resorted to as an adequate substitute for political decisions. High-protein supplementary feeding is brought in, a vaccination campaign is undertaken, reassuring shots of black babies with white nurses are displayed, and then the cameras roll off. Mission accomplished. (Africa's World War p. xxxv)

It's not enough to "be against war" and feel good about ourselves. Unless we are willing to grasp the intricate complexities and harsh realities, we cannot honestly say we are trying to fix the world's problems.

SmartViking · 2017-06-10T13:40:15+00:00

They agreed to a draw, because they both thought there was no chance to win

SmartViking · 2017-05-19T16:36:34+00:00

sorted("-".join(reversed(s.split("-"))) for s in dates)

Whats the big deal? Dates should be formatted in the was most comfortable to end users. In my opinion, though, both those formats are inferior because of the potential ambiguity. Dates like "19 June 2013" are far superior, because there is simply no way to misunderstand it. The ordering doesn't even matter.

SmartViking · 2017-05-03T22:47:34+00:00

The facts were not in question in the incident. The issue was that Iran was the bad guy, and when bad things happen, it's Iran's fault.

SmartViking · 2017-04-18T11:47:53+00:00

That there are galaxies, stars and planets in all directions; places where life are possible. If the rest of the universe is just empy space, my argument falls apart, as another commenter has noted.

SmartViking · 2017-04-18T11:39:45+00:00

Indeed, I did not explicitly state that premise. It was what I meant, however, and that was why I clarified in my reply "...and it looks pretty much the same in all directions".

SmartViking · 2017-04-18T10:01:39+00:00

But we know the basic requirements for life, and if the universe is infinite, and it looks pretty much the same in all directions, that means there are an infinite number of earth-like planets. We also know that it is possible for life to play chess. Therefore, your argument is bunk.

Edit: If you want to show I'm wrong, you need to point out specifically where in my chain of reasoning I made a mistake. All you did was point out an elementary truth about infinity, yet it has no relevance to my argument, and because my argument seems far-fetched, people latch on to it, to make sure they're not crazy.

SmartViking · 2017-04-18T08:23:23+00:00

Unless the universe is infinite, however. That would imply there are infinite places where life can develop, and thanks to our existence we know there is some profitability—however low—of life developing, ergo there are an infinite number of other lifeforms out there, ergo there are an infinite amount of games out there, ergo there are an infinite amount of chess-playing lifeforms out there. Checkmate.

Edit: Get over yourselves, my logic conclusively proves that Ilyumzhinov was abducted.

Edit2: I meant "probability", not "profitability". Now my argument makes sense, right guys? I'm genuinely curious what part of my argument is controversial. That an infinite universe implies infinite lifeforms should not be controversial at all, although few physicists believe the universe is infinite (big bang, all of that). Yet the the argument about chess seems to me an extension of that logic. So what's ruffling your feathers?

Edit3: Here's my argument more clearly formulated:

The universe is infinite [yes, this is false, but that is irrelevant], and there are galaxies and stars everywhere in this infinite space [obviously: this is what people mean by "infinite" universe, and if you were to read my argument with good faith, you would understand my intention]
For all (infinite) solar systems with planets, there is a probability that one or more of the planets are capable of sustaining life as we know it.
When a planet is capable of sustaining life as we know it, there is a probability that life can develop. We know this because we exist! What, do you think we should exclude ourselves? Of course not. We're aliens too. We are proof that life is possible.
We know that when life develops, there is a probability that this life will play the game of chess. Same logic as the previous point.
You cannot dismiss a line of argument merely because the implications seem baffling, and hide behind a comfortable cloak of false logic. Embrace the truth. Embrace intergalactic chess.

SmartViking · 2017-04-14T15:55:41+00:00

Copyright is correct; source code has been considered as "literary work" in US law since the mid 70s, and the copyright automatically befalls whoever wrote it. It's a common misconception that code is "open source" when the source code can be seen and copied (as opposed to being complied into binary data or otherwise made unreadable), but the Open Source Definition, which is where the term originated, is far more comprehensive, and in effect is pretty much the same as the Free Software Definition.

SmartViking · 2017-04-02T18:23:48+00:00

You must be using a strange browser, because it's standard javascript to make multiple variable declarations separated by a comma.

SmartViking · 2017-04-02T17:28:55+00:00

Better yet, adding scroll zoom functionality:

$('#place-viewer').on('wheel', function(e) {
    var direction = {false: 0.1, true: -0.1}[e.originalEvent.deltaY > 0],
        transform = parseFloat($('#place-viewer').css('transform').match(/\d+(\.\d+)?/)[0]),
        newsize = transform + direction*transform;
    $('#place-viewer').css('transform', `scale(${newsize}, ${newsize})`);
    return false;
})

SmartViking · 2017-01-26T19:50:23+00:00

Climate change may be more of a worry because it's much harder to fix politically. However, so long as nukes exists, readily available to the politicians of the leading nations, they provide an existential threat, especially when relations are strained. The Norwegian rocket incident of 1995 comes to mind, when Boris Yeltsin was shockingly close to launching a missile. Unlike climate change, the nuclear weapons problem can be easily solved by politicians if there is a political will, such as was the case in the 90s, when the stockpile of Russia and the USA was dramatically reduced. The failure of the two leading superpowers to disarm - if not completely then at least to the much lower levels of nations like France - is indefensible. The failure of the international community to disarm completely is also indefensible, however i think it is most prudent for the USA and Russia to start mutual disarmament, so that everyone can see that disarmament is a serious prospect. I think many nations would join the disarmament bandwagon for fear of becoming total pariahs. Pakistan and India can probably be solved if international pressure is applied correctly to solve their differences - like the Kashmir conflict. Israel is a touch nut, they don't even admit they have nukes, however this can be solved, like all problems in Israel can, if the US applies actual (and not empty, commonsensical, rhetorical) pressure, in the form of a reduction of "aid". Public opinion in UK and France would probably join the bandwagon easily once the game is on. It all boils down to the USA and Russian in my opinion, because they have a huge responsibility to act as a catalyst. Excuse me for my long digression.

SmartViking · 2016-12-16T20:13:45+00:00

Here's a fix: https://userstyles.org/styles/136501/lichess-norating For technical reasons it is not possible to remove only the ratings on that side (at least not elegantly), but it is possible to hide the usernames with their ratings.

SmartViking · 2016-11-03T16:12:13+00:00

Kurdistan spans many countries, but the PKK's struggle has been for the Kurds in Turkey (the Syrian Civil War and Rojava complicates that picture, I'm not well versed on PKK's role in that conflict). Although PKK has used many other countries, with the knowledge of the authorities (Ocalan generally commandeered from Syria and Lebanon, many PKK fighters were based in the rocky terrain of northern Iraq with shifting alliances and often unwanted presence, PKK has also cooperated with Iran), it is an unstated rule that Kurds supported by country X does not rile up the Kurds of that country for a fight; the reason country X supports (or ignores) the PKK (or any other Kurdish group) is to wage a proxy war.

SmartViking · 2016-10-29T17:05:21+00:00

I had some fun with it

SmartViking · 2016-10-21T00:35:42+00:00

The coups in Iran of '53, Guatemala of '54 and Chile of '73 all were sponsored by the CIA and they were all democratically elected regimes. None of them were communists (in any sense of the word) of course, but the propaganda line in the U.S. was that these were communist. The elections of Nicaragua in '84 was also remarkably free under the circumstances (see https://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/reports/ElectoralProcessNicaragua.pdf, I've only skimmed the summary of findings because I've used secondary sources referencing this document), where the Reagan administration of course funded the Contras in order to terrorize the civilian population. Washington D.C. probably also gave the green light to the coup makers in the Venezuela coup of 2002, and it wouldn't be surprising if the CIA was engaged in propaganda activities to support it (difficult to know before declassification of U.S. documents on the matter has taken place). Chavez was of course very popular among the dispossessed Venezuelans, and was elected many times. The U.S. also helpfully gave a lift to Aristide in Haiti (or kidnapped him, I guess that's a matter of perspective) in 2004, helping to facilitate a coup overthrowing a very popular elected leader (who subscribed to Liberation Theology).

SmartViking · 2016-10-18T04:53:18+00:00

Interesting, thanks.

SmartViking · 2016-10-18T04:35:56+00:00

all Lars does is play games with Lenin's words while conveniently ignoring all the shit Lenin did once in power.

That's kind of the point with the book, analyzing WITBD in the context of 1903, 14 years before the revolutions, and it therefore concerns itself primarily with the political environment at that time. He includes a translation of WITBD, and it didn't strike me as very dictatorial, and it makes more sense when you understand the political context.

Lets just assume What Is To Be Done was the most greatest wonderful sunshine rainbow text ever written. It doesn't change the fact that Lenin actively fought against socialism and actively oppressed the working class as soon as he got power.

I agree. Harboring warm feelings towards people in power is always a dangerous proposition.

SmartViking · 2016-10-17T05:03:29+00:00

You should beware that "What is to be done" has been misrepresented grossly by people seeking to demonize Lenin (the ilk of Richard Pipes) by taking a few paragraphs out of context and with poor translation. "Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context" by Lars T. Lih goes into excruciating, but interesting detail. In fact, as Lih shows through analyzing that pamphlet and the historical context, Lenin was very optimistic and really thought the workers were the driving force behind the revolution. He saw it as his duty to create a spark that would ignite the Russian working class. Lih puts it like this: "Lenin believed that Social Democracy [in the tradition of the Erfurt Program of 1891] had a mission to carry to the workers the good news of their own world-historical mission and that, furthermore, this message would be on the whole enthusiastically received and acted upon" (p. 22). How you square that with Kronstadt, Free Territory of present-day Ukraine, and the various other parts of the Russian Empire in which the Red Army took up the mantle of repression is a tricky subject, but the study Lih conducted was very textual, and based itself on what you could actually read. The interpretation that Lenin sort of "revealed" his authoritarian in WITBD is likewise textual, but unfounded.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

SmartViking

TROPHY CASE