Worth noting that it is illegal in Russia to criticize the war, so saying you don’t support it is probably a good way to get yourself sent to the front lines in an infantry uniform. So, it’s difficult to gauge how many people actually genuinely support it or not.

Yeah, made the hair on the back of my neck stand up a little bit. The fridge door would function here as a large lever, and a cat’s arm is not particularly sturdy.

Blocking resources from entering a country is a form of attack. We criticize Israel over blocking the transport of goods into Gaza, we also need to criticize Egypt for halting the goods into Israel in the run-up to the Six Day War. It’s unacceptable to block the goods going towards an entire region, regardless of which side is doing it.

Just need to edit the main body. The coalition did not actually declare war first, they just closed the Strait of Tiran first, when it had been made clear that would be an act of war. Details matter though.

There’s a reason so many poker players wear sunglasses.

Anyway, try to preempt your emotional reaction. There’s always many different flavors of reactions we can have to something really negative, which normally depends heavily on mood. By default, this all just runs unconsciously, but it doesn’t have to. Of the many potential options, like anger, sadness, condescending disdain, arrogant bemusement or surprise, you can try to consciously pick one and channel your feelings towards it instead of just letting your feelings run wild.

Or you can just practice a proper poker face, but that can be really hard. Doable though, just takes a lot of practice. Playing poker would be an effective way to get that practice.

Is there thinking among the locals that a big war might break out? Or do more people think it will just be small border skirmishes?

You know getting a progressive President wouldn’t have gotten us any closer to abortion rights? Unlike Trump, we actually follow our separation of powers principles, which means the Pres has limited authority. You expect us to just ignore court orders and the legislature like Trump does or something?

A law enshrining abortion rights would require a filibuster-proof Senate majority and control of the House.

I’m all for being critical of the DNC, but we should be clear-eyed on how governing actually works. Also, pretty hard to say Harris was less progressive than Obama, her Senate voting record was pretty damn progressive.

There’s degrees of difference. Wheat goes through a new generation every year. Faster if you have a greenhouse. People go through a new generation every few decades. Wheat can thus change 20-30 times faster than people.

A century is, at minimum, 100 different “iterations” of the wheat genome. A century is ~3 “iterations” of humans.

I’ve never understood people wanting to curve the pommel. I guess it looks interesting, but it makes it feel like you’re getting less palm contact in your grip. Feels less firm.

Agreed. I understand people’s desire to look at the fact that both women lost, but we should also remember the fact that they both failed to unify their own coalition. This is a pretty big deal, if you can’t even unify your own coalition, your prospects are pretty damn challenging.

That charisma element is very valuable for that, as is tossing your own faction members enough policy bones to satisfy them even if you’re not fully pleasing them. Clinton and Harris both failed to do this, and took their coalitions a little bit too much for granted. Harris came close with the Walz pick, but Gaza weighed very heavily on her with progressives. She needed to do more to distance herself from Biden to thoroughly win them over.

Ultimately, I think our problem stemmed from them not understanding the appeal of the far right. This caused them to underestimate the strength of their opponent and fail to run as dynamically and aggressively as necessary. They played it too safe. With Harris in particular, I wanted to see the prosecutor prosecute the case against Trump, with the voters as the jury. Instead her stump speeches and interviews remained frustratingly soft. Hilary did this too.

We the people can look at Trump as some big joke, and make fun of him and his supporters as much as we want. But the opposition candidate has to take him deathly seriously, and give him the gravity he is due as a potentially fascist leader of the worlds most powerful military. That is no laughing matter.

This sort of speech by AOC is what we needed more of, and even it is a little bit soft: https://youtu.be/OO7SE4Zpd9s

Bernie could have done it too, I think. He did come fairly close in the primary, even though he was fighting upstream against lingering negative sentiment about “socialists” in middle America. I think the country has changed enough in the past 10 years, partly due to his trailblazing, that that’s no longer as much as an albatross as it once was though.

Once an authoritarian state reaches a certain degree of power, they’re no longer vulnerable to their own populations. They just have too much control over the information, domestic security, economy, etc. Hypothetically you can imagine: if everyone who stands up gets their head cut off, and that goes on for 500 years, this will create a very different sort of population than we are accustomed to.

At that point they can only really be toppled by a foreign power or an uprising from their own elites. The peasants are simply no longer a factor.

A peace plan was always a foolish promise, the two sides remain too far apart in what they are willing to accept. There is no amount of pressure that Trump is willing to exert on the two parties combined that will overcome all the hurdles to some sort of compromise, unless we want to get directly involved with our own troops.

Ukraine requires a hard security guarantee, something with more teeth than the Budapest Memorandum. (which specified no actual actions from the signatories, just a vague promise) That is non-negotiable for them, not getting one leaves them in pretty much the same position they were in when the war started, except with less land–not good prospects for future survival. Trump has been unwilling to promise this, though, because it could pull the US actively into a war in the future with no benefit for him. This, of course, is exactly what would be so appealing about one to the Ukrainians, it would be a formidable security arrangement.

Putin requires a significant victory he can bring home, not something half-assed. His support among his fellow elites, who have made sacrifices for this war, hinges on making that worth something. He needs more of the land, at very least the 4 Oblasts he has formally annexed into the Russian Federation. Otherwise he is literally leaving what they now see as formal parts of Russia in enemy hands and saying “ok I guess we’re done now”. If he can’t secure them (he has around half currently), it means all these losses were basically for nothing, and that is a dire threat to an authoritarian leader. This would put him in an absolutely horrible, nigh-suicidal position where he would have to stay away from windows for the rest of his life.

So, it’s basically existential for both sides. They also both retain possible routes to victory, it’s not out of the question for either of them. Ukraine could try to outlast the Russian war economy, war economies are not sustainable forever. Russia could try to continue their slow progress on the ground, they still have more troops. It’s not easy to bridge these two sides, no amount of money or resources or soft pressure could bribe them away from their primary objectives.

AD threw me for a little bit of a loop. I saw copper and brass and my mind just automatically substituted BC for AD. Then I was being really amazed with how well preserved it was… lol

Some of my favorite war clips. Saves ammo, free source of intel, and the guy doesn’t even have to die and might get prisoner exchanged.

Certainly. But we still cannot say that should mean every beneficial mutation for their lives was likely to be adopted. Like I said earlier, the majority of possibly good things are left on the table, even when drawbacks are not considered.

Including drawbacks muddies it up even further, we can look at how cardiovascular shock occurs and how the particular traits that create it were a bit of a double edged sword.

But what is the likelihood of this autonomous stress relieving function arising, how many mutations would be required to implement such a thing? Would it have any significant drawbacks or side effects in other aspects of our biology?

You can’t look only at the propagation side of things.

Another thing, stress isn’t event based per se. It’s more of a floating value that always exists to a certain degree and provides both positive and negative effects at different levels and in different situations. The negative health impacts come in when it remains high for a long period of time. So what we’d really want to look at is something like the frequency of headpats given to your dog or something, and the effects of this compared to other potential stress relieving activities like meditation.

Lastly, I would check your data on pet availability, I think it’d be far, far higher than 10%.

Negative health outcomes are an evolutionary pressure.

Also, evolution does not work from a plan, we do not spontaneously generate all the things that would benefit us over a long enough timeframe. Instead, random things happen and certain ones propagate while others don’t. Because it is not a conscious force operating from any sort of plan, and instead works via random mutation and propagation of beneficial traits, it leaves a whole bunch of potentially beneficial things unadopted.

Otherwise all life would just move towards some sort of optimal form, maybe crabs, instead of evolving greater and greater diversity that can better handle changing environments.

One I can think of would be stress relief. Stress contributes to a lot of negative health outcomes, and cuddling with a pet can help mitigate some of that stress. Wouldn’t surprise me if amount of stress also has a more general effect on overall decisionmaking.

Meh. Let me just ask my buddy Pete what’s going on, he’ll have all the details.

I wouldn’t want to be a marine period, but between the choices of higher risk of drowning vs higher risk of being stabbed in the lung, I’d take the armor if it was offered.