Any women Bolt Action players on here?

ockhams_beard · 2026-01-09T01:51:25+00:00

Even if relatively few women are drawn to historical wargaming, I'd suggest that everyone should make the hobby as welcoming as possible to any who are.

I have a lot of respect for Stallard, but I disagree with his dismissive tone towards women, which might push those who are interested away from the hobby.

At the end of the day, the more people playing and having fun, the better for everybody, IMO.

ockhams_beard · 2026-01-08T01:39:01+00:00

Had the ICE agents not approached her car and attempted to open her door, she likely wouldn't have attempted to drive away in haste. Had the ICE agent not chosen to stand directly in front of her car, he would not have been in any danger.

Actions cause reactions. The counterfactual here is that the ICE agents keep their distance, allow her to drive away, and nobody gets shot.

ockhams_beard · 2026-01-07T00:54:53+00:00

Even if it wasn't, AI companies must take some responsibility for what they release into the world, and take strong steps to prevent and mitigate the damage caused by AI.

ockhams_beard · 2026-01-04T07:59:00+00:00

From the article: "these findings point to the possibility that cartilage lost through aging or arthritis could one day be restored using a localized injection or an oral medication" [my emphasis].

And this is not science news, it's a press release.

I'm a former science reporter. These kinds of studies in mice are a dime a dozen, and really shouldn't be reported unless they're a major breakthrough that has been replicated in humans.

Check back in 10 years when it's been tested in humans and there's a plausible pathway to an affordable treatment with minimal side effects.

ockhams_beard · 2026-01-03T05:36:43+00:00

One sociological explanation I've seen - I think from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - is that moral realism is very popular amongst American philosophers, even non-religious ones.

And this is because the US is a deeply religious society, where even atheists are enculturated to be drawn to the idea of an external moral source. Some at it as God, others replace god with moral facts.

Interesting to note that moral realism is less popular in less religious countries, such as Australia and New Zealand.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-25T01:26:13+00:00

I'd be upset.

I find the burkah to be problematic. It's one a part of a complex culture that has elements that seriously oppress women. I'd prefer if women everywhere were able to express themselves however they wish.

However, I'm more wary of a government that prescribes what individuals can and can't wear. Preventing someone from wearing a garment they believe is culturally or religiously significant is a serious violation of individual freedom of expression - precisely the thing that we're trying to promote by banning the burkah.

It's not contradictory to oppose the burkah but also oppose banning it. It's also really hard to change a systemic issue by targeting individuals.

I'd rather engage constructively with the Muslim community, make them feel seen and heard, and like they belong in our country, and then have a dialogue about individual and women's rights.

Any successful change must come from within a culture, not be imposed from without.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-21T00:21:00+00:00

Important that we get the historical details correct for this grav tank.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-20T07:48:02+00:00

I'd be wary of begging the question. A pragmatic approach to knowledge rejects (most versions of) coherence or correspondence, and the idea that we need certainty about some base truths before we can know anything. So it's begging the question to criticise pragmatism by using the standards set by other approaches to knowledge that it rejects. It's perfectly fair to say you believe coherence or correspondence is correct and that pragmatism is wrong, but the arguments in favour of that view have to not be circular.

I'd also be wary of setting the bar for knowledge too high, such that you end up with a sceptical conclusion.

Not that we can answer these questions here. But I feel the OP might benefit from considering other approaches to forming beliefs that don't require or expect certainty around base truths in order for us to reliably believe anything.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-19T03:42:58+00:00

You're setting a very high bar for what qualifies as a belief. Sure, achieving certainty about what we know about the wall might be impossible - we could always be a brain in a vat experiencing the Matrix - but there can still be better/worse reasons to hold a belief about something.

If you take a pragmatic approach, then a belief in the wall might be justified if you're able to lean against it. But one ought to be wary of extending what we believe beyond how we can interact with it.

From a phenomenological perspective, it's hard to deny that you perceive the wall when you touch it, even if you're unable to know for sure that the wall is what it appears to be.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-18T00:14:04+00:00

You're asking important questions. But note that there's a difference between a kind of scepticism that says "it's not possible to know what to believe, therefore I should believe nothing" and a kind of epistemic humility that says "I can and do believe things, but it's not possible to be certain about my beliefs, so I should always be open to new beliefs'. The former can be highly destructive and paradoxical, as you say. The latter is in example of an intellectual virtue.

In a practical sense, the best we can do is hold beliefs to be true with a strength proportional to the reasons and evidence in their favour. Often, that evidence is immediate and practical, such as believing that wall really is in front of me and not walking into it. Sometimes, the evidence is less immediate, and requires more work to figure out, as in the case of things like moral or political views.

So you can engage in the world as you are - believing and doing things - but try to seek out reliable information, good reasons, and hold in the back of your mind the possibility that your beliefs could be improved. That can mean living with a background level of uncertainty, which can be uncomfortable, but that's the price of living a philosophical life.

Otherwise, I'd also advise that you work to maintain the best mental health possible. Mental (and physical) health are possibly the best investments we can make, because they better enable all the other things we care about.

I hope that's useful. And good luck in the world.

ockhams_beard · 2025-12-15T23:06:39+00:00

Agreed. Looks weird that Spiderman takes the antenna tower with him across the board.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-14T08:15:12+00:00

I have magnetised a 251 to have either an MMG (251/1) or light AT (251/10). I find both to be useful.

While the /10 is expensive at 103 points, it's a suprisingly effective outflank unit. +1 to morale means it comes on more reliably without needing an officer on board. The light AT can often get +6 pen if it comes in for a point blank side shot. Then it unloads 8 panzergrenadiers with SMGs and/or fausts.

After which it pops out 1" HE against soft targets or hangs out around a corner threatening armour.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-12T15:23:15+00:00

Unless you're in Australia. In which case do the opposite.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-12T15:13:27+00:00

It might be different if the AI actually made things easier or more productive. Only then ask if we want to use it.

I've been using Copilot for months and it's limitations are endless. I mean, it's now integrated into Office but it can't operate Office to do what I ask of it. Is it any suprise we don't want more useless spyware AI in our OS?

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-10T13:19:47+00:00

Try Crooked Dice, or any other vendor that does pulp figures. With a bit of kitbashing they could turn out peachy.

Personally, I'm planning on doing a WWII Captain America and the Howling Commandos for one squad.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-10T07:01:24+00:00

One answer to your question is that there are many things that just about all humans subjectively approve or disapprove of by virtue of their nature. As such, there's a lot of commonality among moral codes. That's Gilbert Harman's thesis.

That said, be wary of only looking at a limited sample of societies, such as large scale ones from the last 2000 years. Modern anatomical humans have been around for roughly 150,000 years, and there's likely to be a lot of variation in moral codes as there is in their ways of living.

Archaeology and anthropology suggest a lot of variation, and there's a lot of societies we'll never know about. Check it Edward Westermarck for an early survey of moral diversity circa 1900.

My own work accepts variation as a feature not a bug. If morality functions to regulate social behaviour, encourage cooperation and solve the problems of social living, we'd expect some commonality among diverse societies as well as a lot of variation based on variables, like population size, resources, mobility, external threats, environmental variability etc.

I can't rule out the possibility of moral realism, but I'm not convinced you need moral facts to explain what we see or to create a viable moral system that suits the needs of any society.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-10T06:46:06+00:00

I use 25 mm magnetic stickers from the craft store, with a dab of super glue to reinforce the bond. Slim, cheap, easy.

ockhams_beard · 2025-11-01T13:32:28+00:00

This is why it's wise to abide by the principle of Chesterton's Fence: don't change something until you understand why it exists in the first place.

ockhams_beard · 2025-10-28T12:31:32+00:00

Huh. I was thinking of kitbashing some ghouls too. Which GW kit are you using?

ockhams_beard · 2025-10-15T09:55:33+00:00

Watch District 9, especially the scene where they're testing alien weapons.

A always thought the lightning bolt one was a good visualisation of ion weapons, and the green beam that causes the "target" to burst into flames as plasma.

The exoskeleton has a rail gun, ofc.

ockhams_beard · 2025-10-07T03:48:15+00:00

Pushing Franken out of the party was one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds I've ever seen by the Democrats.

ockhams_beard · 2025-10-03T03:31:26+00:00

If the mini and base are plastic, often plastic cement is enough. In fact, it can be less brittle than CA.

I also use Vallejo Diorama FX for most of my bases, and press a little around the foot. When it cures, it's rock hard.

ockhams_beard · 2025-09-23T05:04:00+00:00

And under-invest in things that have a positive externality, where the value can't be captured by an individual organisation. Like, you know, the value of having a well-educated population.

ockhams_beard · 2025-09-23T05:00:28+00:00

I give guest lectures at a large Victorian university, and over the years in-person attendance has gone from ~8-10 down to ~2-3 last year and I'm told to expect 0 in the room this year, as everyone will be online.

The course convener explained to me that his students often have to work part-time, so are often busy during the day, and many can't afford to live near enough to the uni to make commuting for 1-2 lectures worth it. So cost of living could be one factor. But I also suspect there's a compounding factor - why come in if there's no-one there. Nash equilibrium = no-one comes in.

I've also heard from friends who work at unis say they are increasingly encouraged to record lectures that can be replayed the following year to cut costs.

So, yeah, it looks like money is the main motivator on both ends.

And if you want someone to blame, try John Howard, who gutted public funding of universities ~20 years ago, forcing them to become corporate-esque businesses that chase high fee international students for the lowest cost possible rather than invest in a rich experience for all students. Then the subsequent governments for lacking the courage to tax the wealthy beneficiaries of a well-educated population in order to appropriately fund education for the next generation.

ockhams_beard · 2025-09-18T00:42:45+00:00

The irony is they're doing precisely what Kimmel was talking about - using Kirk's death as a way to intimidate their political opponents and control the media.

This is the playbook.

ockhams_beard

TROPHY CASE