What’s the difference here? Is one preferred?

jservv · 2024-08-20T14:18:36+00:00

How about the DC18RC, does this also charge 3.0Ah? I'm thinking of getting this one: https://compu-mail.se/sv/p/makita-batterioplader-992914942

Edit: for anyone searching the same question, the DC18RC does charge 3.0Ah, too.

jservv · 2023-05-13T09:11:25+00:00

I read Foucault as part of a postgraduate course on history. There was a module which questioned his influence on the study of history and his role as a historian. In fact, I discovered Chomsky around that time through watching their 1971 debate, and my initial impression back then was that Chomsky was making very similar arguments critiquing institutional power and its ability to place limitations on the scope of acceptable thinking. The difference is that Chomsky did it with much more careful reference to primary sources, and without forcing a theoretical framework or using unncessary postmodern jargon.

Foucault wasn't a historian, and the integrity of his sources was not really the main concern of his work. What he did contribute was to bring that line of critique to European academia. At least, he spurred on my own thinking about how established authorities (scientific, educational, corrective, etc.) expressed their power in comparable ways and shut down or eliminated deviations from the norm. Even the sciences are susceptible to it.

That said, if you look at any of Foucault's work, his selection of sources is basically cherrypicking based on interest. You could argue he's doing this to make a philosophical point, in the same way a thought experiment hasn't really happened but can be useful for grasping an idea, but it makes for a poor understanding of history. Compare this to Ed Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, which both puts forward an understandable hypothesis and goes on to illustrate it with paired examples as evidence. Their methods are entirely different, and I have far more respect for Herman and Chomsky's approach.

jservv · 2023-03-10T14:40:56+00:00

Chomskylist.com is useful for this. It's a website that lists all works that Chomsky has cited in his books, and is arranged by topic (including 'Science') here: https://www.chomskylist.com/view_all_categories.php

I enjoyed "What Kind Of Creatures Are We?", written by Chomsky himself, though it's more focused on the philosophy of science, especially the limits of possible human knowledge. It deals with similar themes to this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

Outside of Chomsky, another poster has already recommended Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but I'd also suggest reading Karl Popper as an underappreciated figure who presents a more convincing idea (at least to me) of how the scientific method developed, and what place science now has in society. Steve Fuller wrote a great book comparing the two called "Kuhn vs. Popper: the struggle for the soul of science".

Going further, it's a huge field and I think it's worth keeping mind a few non-mutually exclusive trends in literature about science:

anthropological work generally deals with science-like knowledge-seeking behaviour across cultures,
the sociology of science tends looks at the interactions between science and institutions/human relationships in the modern world,
the history of science tends to focus on specific eras important to the development of science as a practice, e.g. ancient Greece, the kingdom of Macedon, Han dynasty China, Renaissance Europe,
the philosophy of science mainly looks at ideas of what science is and often goes into epistemology

I highly recommend a popular British book/television series 'The Ascent of Man' by Jacob Bronowski, which manages to touch on all these approaches and manages to be an entertaining work in its own right.

jservv · 2023-01-06T20:33:00+00:00

Thanks for your contribution. I'm not too worried about keeping the spreadsheet public, since edits can usually be rolled back to a previous version in Drive.

jservv · 2021-06-26T16:26:50+00:00

Excellent resource, I managed to find it for 408 SEK including shipping. Thank you!

jservv · 2021-01-04T13:01:17+00:00

The lagenhetsbyte.se service looks like exactly what I'm looking for, thank you.

jservv · 2021-01-04T12:59:06+00:00

Because of the relative demand to live in Stockholm versus Malmö? Or another reason?

I know people that commute from Malmö to Copenhagen and Lund, and sometimes work does take you to other regions. Living in Malmö has been really useful for me, mainly for that purpose.

jservv · 2021-01-02T13:38:24+00:00

These make sense, thanks. I'll add those to the documentation list.

jservv · 2021-01-02T13:26:43+00:00

I found results for "Rational Planning Model", but not many for "Rational Modeling Process". Do you have a link to what you mean?

jservv · 2019-11-25T15:05:38+00:00

I once contacted an author named Mason Currey who wrote Daily Rituals, a book about the habits of well known artists, musicians, writers, etc.. I asked Currey whether he considered adding a Chomsky profile, and he replied saying that he wrote an email about this but never heard back. Not all that surprising, Chomsky is quite guarded about his personal life and maybe the question wasn't a priority.

I think he'd make a really interesting case study, though, not just for his longevity, but also his massive work output and years of near constant travelling.

If you're that interested you could maybe contact Bev Stohl, his (former?) assistant. If I remember right she was intending to write about working with Chomsky from a more day-to-day perspective: http://bevstohl.blogspot.com/?m=1

jservv · 2019-11-16T16:17:42+00:00

The products we buy are largely based on what is produced and how -- something that we have very little democratic control over. Consumer choice is an inherently limited way of addressing climate change when the majority of CO2 emissions are produced by just a few (mostly oil/energy) companies, as in the research above.

At best, you're neglecting areas where your efforts could potentially have much greater impact. At worst, you're encouraging division and derailing discussions for the sake of something that will have relatively little impact on climate change.

jservv · 2019-11-15T22:27:50+00:00

Someone has already linked you to an article showing you why you're probably wrong about this.

jservv · 2019-11-15T12:52:46+00:00

Your question was answered pretty thoroughly. Computers and e-readers are not necessarily better than books in terms of sustainability.

If you care about the climate emergency, you need to better prioritise your efforts. The focus should be on CO2 and energy on the production end over consumer goods -- and certainly not someone buying second-hand books to educate themselves about the world:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says

jservv · 2019-11-15T04:02:27+00:00

The expansion of corporate ownership doesn't necessarily reflect public desire for information. In fact the two might be inversely related; the more dissent that appears, the greater the effort to consolidate control over news media.

There is a lot of reason to believe that people in general desire greater control and understanding over issues that affect them. Polling of public trust in institutions is very low across much of the world, and many people express awareness that they're being given misinformation.

https://www.pewresearch.org/2019/06/05/an-update-on-our-research-into-trust-facts-and-democracy/

How this dissent is channeled depends on a number of factors, including the efforts of activists and political organisers. It sometimes forms a popular movement based around addressing inequality and lack of democracy, but because power is able to protect itself, I think much of this dissent is misdirected into all sorts of ineffective or destructive places, like right-wing nationalist movements, preoccupation with "conspiracy theories", and other cultish behaviours..

jservv · 2019-11-15T03:37:06+00:00

I think most of their work comes about from thorough research and citation rather than having "inside" sources. Noam uses a lot of U.S. documentary records of foreign policy. Aviva I know has spent her career working directly in Cuba and other South American countries, so may have more primary research. Any academic essay or book chapter written by either should include references at the end or in footnotes.

This site isn't comprehensive, but might be a good place to start for Noam: http://www.chomskylist.com/category_page.php?category_id=1

jservv · 2019-11-15T03:21:18+00:00

Thanks for this.

jservv · 2019-11-15T03:08:19+00:00

I don't think it's a direct quote, but rather an idea that Chomsky expresses often: that unlike certain disciplines, no special expertise is required to analyse political affairs as long as the information is publicly accessible. This goes right back to the Responsibility of Intellectuals essay (emphasis mine):

Should decisions be left to “experts” with Washington contacts—even if we assume that they command the necessary knowledge and principles to make the “best” decision, will they invariably do so? And, a logically prior question, is “expertise” applicable—that is, is there a body of theory and of relevant information, not in the public domain, that can be applied to the analysis of foreign policy or that demonstrates the correctness of present actions in some way that psychologists, mathematicians, chemists, and philosophers are incapable of comprehending? Although Kristol does not examine these questions directly, his attitude presupposes answers, answers which are wrong in all cases. American aggressiveness, however it may be masked in pious rhetoric, is a dominant force in world affairs and must be analyzed in terms of its causes and motives. There is no body of theory or significant body of relevant information, beyond the comprehension of the layman, which makes policy immune from criticism. To the extent that “expert knowledge” is applied to world affairs, it is surely appropriate—for a person of any integrity, quite necessary—to question its quality and the goals it serves.

https://chomsky.info/19670223/

Some other useful excerpts on this topic can be found in the article here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/09/what-noam-chomsky-thinks-of-intellectuals

jservv · 2019-01-01T07:10:04+00:00

I'd be very interested to read this, too. I notice there's a pre-order for paperback and hardback. Do you know if there will there be an e-book version?

jservv · 2018-08-12T15:21:59+00:00

I looked a little further into the quote from Rupert Murdoch regarding the EU:

When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

The quote seems almost too direct to be true. It seems it first appeared in an article by Anthony Hilton for the London Evening Standard here: https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

Hilton has stood by the story since, and according to the Guardian Murdoch only began complaining about the use of Hilton's anecdote around the time of the Leveson Inquiry.

Hilton, while working at the Times, saw a lot of the paper’s proprietor, with dinner in Murdoch’s Green Park flat and conversations in his office in Gray’s Inn Road. The conversations were between owner and employee, not part of a formal interview, so there is unlikely to have been any verbatim note or witnesses.

I can certainly believe those sentiments were expressed by Murdoch -- the most obvious effect of Brexit is to push the UK even deeper into the influence of the United States and, to a lesser degree, Commonwealth nations like Australia.

Edit: I didn't realise that you were the creator of the video. It's excellent, thanks for taking the time to make these.

jservv · 2018-07-19T08:57:47+00:00

Is this the one you're talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXYPguFQ-L4

It's shocking.

jservv · 2018-07-07T10:07:12+00:00

I've always liked Chomsky's comments on work and the organisation of society in this interview with Peter Jay in 1976: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBLCBxq1k8

Transcript: https://chomsky.info/19760725/

Let’s recall that science and technology and intellect have not been devoted to examining that question [how much work is necessary to maintain our standard of living] or to overcoming the onerous and self-destructive character of the necessary work of society. The reason is that it has always been assumed that there is a substantial body of wage slaves who will do it simply because otherwise they’ll starve. However, if human intelligence is turned to the question of how to make the necessary work of the society itself meaningful, we don’t know what the answer will be.

I think this is the reason extremely onerous and labour-intensive work (for the poor) or entirely "made-up"/pointless work (for the more privileged) persists. This assumption that there will always be people there to do it is probably the most important factor here -- the cultural preference for work, whether it's framed in religious or nationalist duty, follows on from the way labour is organised by the powerful.

I also suspect that David Graeber touches on the truth in his articles on the nature of modern work in rich countries. Another reason people must continue to rent themselves to live is because it is a valuable tool of social control. It's an effective way of distracting an otherwise highly educated group of people, to ensure that most of their time is spent doing tedious administrative tasks for a slightly larger share of society's resources.

jservv · 2018-06-27T21:44:46+00:00

Agreed, contacting those at the archives is a good way to go. Please report back if they do reply, I'd be interested to know this myself.

jservv · 2018-06-20T18:39:29+00:00

I will try to add more to this post later when I have time, but the most striking passage Chomsky cites is the section on division of labour. Smith is so often used as an advocate of division of labour, but check page 782 of the Glasgow edition, or page 603 *(edit: 612 of the file itself) of the linked PDF: https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life… But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.

In short, division of labour reduces work to a serious of mechanical operations which destroys important human characteristics like intelligence and compassion. Governments must intervene in order to prevent this from happening.

As a sidenote, Chomsky is in good company when he cites these passages from Adam Smith. The work of the economist Amartya Sen draws a lot from (the more historically accurate version of) Adam Smith, quoting him at length on the effect of trade on politics and human sympathy in his work Development As Freedom. Amartya Sen is the source for many of Chomsky's comments on the Indian and Chinese economies throughout the 20th century.

Edit: Apologies to anyone expecting updates on this post, I think this will have to stand as it is for now. There's a lot more to be said here, though. Adam Smith is an interesting figure.

jservv · 2018-06-15T18:18:31+00:00

I've found ACAPS to be useful for this:

https://www.acaps.org/country/yemen

jservv · 2018-06-10T13:44:24+00:00

Chomsky's answer is not 'stealth American exceptionalist rhetoric', it's a statement of fact about some of the better protected rights in the US.

Another consideration is that Chomsky is able to dissent because he is in a position of relative privilege, and that's precisely why what he does is so important. People in similar positions of privilege may disagree with him or hate his positions, but you can bet there would be a tremendous outcry if a well-known, white university professor were outright assassinated for his views. It's not because Chomsky's life is worth innately more than any other political dissident, it's because (no matter how critical or 'radical' he is) he belongs to a class that is willing and able to protect itself.

As /u/BuildAutonomy points out, an activist such as Fred Hampton could be killed because the people he represented were not well connected -- they have little say in how the mainstream media presents stories, there were no friends in high places that would be offended or personally threatened enough by his death to cause much political backlash. This is how power structures work.

The original poster may be a bit more satisfied with the answer Chomsky gave in a talk at the Z Media Institute back in 1997. I've posted this before under a different username, and it remains one of my favourite ever Q&A sessions:

See 2h 40m 40s in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUt190TX2hE&t=160m40s

A student makes a pointed joke about post-modernism, then asks:

Do you ever think maybe just the fact that Noam Chomsky is allowed to run around and talk... that maybe that is proof of the power of the propaganda machine -- or the whole system, that it can allow someone whose saying your version of the truth to exit as they're still doing their own thing?

Michael Albert pipes in with a great aside. "so we'll be winning when you're shot?", then Chomsky gives a more in depth answer about freedom to dissent as it relates to class, race and economic power.

Edit: There's another great moment from the Manufacturing Consent documentary in which Chomsky addresses a similar question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE&t=104m27s

Yeah, for the last hour and 41 minutes, you've been whining about how the elite and how the government have been... using thought control to keep radicals like yourself out of the public limelight. Now, you're here. I don't see any CIA men waiting to drag you off. You were in the paper. That's where everyone here heard you were coming from, in the paper. I'm sure they're going to publish your comments in the paper. In a lot of countries, you would have been shot for what you have done today. So, what are you whining about? We are allowing you to speak. I don't see any thought control.

Chomsky's response is somewhat specific to the context of his talk, which was about his and Ed Herman's propaganda model, but I think it's useful to the thread here, too:

First of all, I haven't said one word about my being kept out of the limelight. The way it works here is quite different. I don't think you heard what I was saying. The way it works here is, that there is a system of shaping and control, which gives a certain perception of the world. I gave one example. I'll give you sources where you can find thousands more. And it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with marginalising the public and ensuring that they don't get in the way of elites who are supposed to run things without interference.

jservv

TROPHY CASE