From my research ‘Salt’ meant fool, ‘salt of the earth’ is like a ‘bless your heart sort’ of matter. The implications for Salary would mean that the soldiers were being fooled by accepting what they were given as payment. They also say the Lord works in mysterious ways.
What calculus do you propose everyone uses to work out where the funds should be allocated? Who decides? How do we account for technology that was created as part of the war effort i.e. computers, jet engines, the internet etc?
Ok what about medicine that was developed largely as a result of war? I'm not pro war by the way, I've seen it and it's ugly, but "money should go to good things not war" is such a facile statement
This is your imagination. I didn't say that. I didn't say anything about war. I said weapons save lives. We can see again and again and again that if you don't have weapons then the people who hate you will attempt to kill you.
You completely miss the point. If we want to have better future then two values must become together - superior philosophy and superior weapons. It is clear that nothing good come out when only one is presented.
Without war, societies implode; they get taken over. Keeping a society going means lots of ‘work’.
Did the Egyptians, Macedonians, Romans, Mughal, etc., stand long on the shoulders of peace?
It doesn’t happen.
Why did Siberians come over to the Americas? To explore and spread peace? Populations encroach and you stand and fight or seek out new land. We've run out of new land so equilibrium is achieved through other means, including war.
Some kind of external 'work' is necessary. War is the easiest form of such work, easiest meaning requiring the least momentum to get a society behind it.
I would love to see us go to war on climate change, but that's not likely as long as we have charismatic politicians fighting to build a base by stirring hateful emotions. Whether that hate is against abortions, Palestinians, african-americans, muslims, or others.
As a society I think we have become more apathetic, more sad, and as result more interested in things that distract us from how bad it is. As a result people like Musk gain a cult following, and much attention. We want to do amazing things against climate change, we want to colonize the rest of the solar system..but NASA's budget this year was $30.9B, next year it's $25B, and over the last two years Musk has lost around $180B (Over 7x the NASA budget for next year).
Our problem is not the technology. It usually isn't. It's our prioritization and attention to avoid uncomfortable truths.
You should read William James's lecture 'The Moral Equivalent of War'. He was a founder of the anti-imperialist league and a pacifist, but recognized the benefits of war for a society (joint effort galvanizes a people together). He proposed we conduct "war on nature", which we would call "disaster relief" nowadays.
Is your argument that in trying to avoid war as a source of external work, people are following anyone with an alternative vision for external work with Elon Musk being one person putting such a vision forward?
No. I wasn't trying to argue, but stating what I perceive. My perception is that our society has become more apathetic and depressed than before, and we seek distractions. Focusing on solving real problems that could be existential threats to humanity (climate change, all our eggs in one basket/planet, etc.) is the opposite of a distraction. Yet we as a people cannot sit still, or our apathy becomes impossible to ignore, so we find something. A war, just or unjust, is an easy something to find - there is always someone who we deem needs protecting; always someone we deem needs punishing.
Absolutely amazing. Hey kids we’re not killing enough innocent civilians and as a result people are beginning to follow “dreadful” people like elon musk.
Do wars produce innovation? Sure. Is any of that innovation worth a single life? Bet ya wouldn’t think so if it was your loved one.
Not even close to the same thing. I’m fully prepared to defend myself in my own home. Multiple measures in place to insure specific boundaries are not crossed and if they are multiple methods to commit violence in defense of my family. Not sure how pillaging my neighbor for their underground orange juice would aid in that.
In fact I would argue unjustified war makes the citizens of the country waging the war even more vulnerable and not less.
You are not understanding the thread at all but not a huge shock at orange site.
User 1: we need war to facilitate “external work” and innovation.
User 2: innovation through war is true but is it worth the cost of innocent lives (ignoring the lmfao Elon comment)
Work on comprehending the conversation before adding drivel.
I hope I am not user 2. Innovation through war happens, but it happens faster if we focus on innovation itself. Also, the innovations that happen in war are predominantly weapon-focused.
It is good to be able to defend yourself. However, if you have a high belief that your neighbor will attack you, then it's a good idea to ask why. The answer is usually ideology or resource scarcity, more often resources or a combination.
If you solve the problem of scarcity of resources, then there is a much reduced desire for war. Climate change is going to make food and land more scarce, leading to more conflict. Population growth is going to do the same (though we're seeing some signs that might be self-limiting in some countries). If we poured into space colonization and climate change half the money each year we spend on defense, we'd stand a good chance at solving those problems. I don't have the math in front of me, but I think half would be about $500 billion per year, counting regular spending and special aid packages. That's 20x NASA's budget for next year, or put another way, 20 years of NASA research at current funding.
First civilians aren’t always innocent, often they are active participants, out of necessity to survive, in war. Two, appeals to emotions don’t change the calculus of war on the level of a society. We are both individuals and a society. We have roles as both. People will go to war putting their own selves in harms way to protect ideals, family, whatever. Look at Ukraine. They could simply submit. Should they stop fighting? Rationally they should.
I disagree. You take the attackers POV (I'd say every example you've listed is viewed negatively by the vast majority of global citizens).
So in the eye of an attacker, war is necessary. To me that's not enough to prove that wars in general, as a concept, are necessary for societies to move forward. They're more of a shortcut for dictators or institutions to get things they otherwise couldn't get, or at least not as fast/efficient as they'd like.
In theory you’re right. In reality we have people who seek power or in some popular cases a popular mandate to cause change or negate change through war (many civil wars, for example).
This isn’t unique to people. Lots of organisms and even systems operate in similar manner.
Yeah you're right, there will always people who start wars, or would like to start them. But if the question is, "Is war necessary?", then my answer is no. Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not contain war as an item, our earth moves on fine if no war occurs, etc.
If the USPS was never a public service America would literally look differently. Maybe social media(including YouTube) is the modern day USPS, the primary way Americans interact/communicate with each other.
Realistically, no. Security is not a feature people are dying to pay for, it's just overhead. Look at Experian, on the front page again, still insecure. It's cheaper to make the defective product and say you're a little sorry, now and then.
Isn't this sort of what the lawsuit is for, though? Even if it's cheaper to make the initial defective product and say you're sorry after, if the sorry is both guaranteed (prosecuting even the long tail) and large enough, then hopefully at some point it raises the overall cost to the point where it's now cheaper to build things correctly.
Are we really going to essentially outlaw releasing buggy software now? And taking down software and services once a security issue has been found? Because I don't think any software I wrote was ever 100% bug-free.
Their decision not to fix is not the problem, their decision to keep the flaw a secret and sell products with a performance expectation set and then release patches that slow down that paid for performance is.
Anyone who needs out-of-the-box performance can get it if they're willing to accept out-of-the-box security. Of course that doesn't make these side-channel attacks any less frustrating. For instance the original Meltdown and Spectre attacks were on my mind when I chose to "vote with my dollar" and buy an AMD CPU, only to end up with Zenbleed this year lol
They shouldn't have to accept OOB security flaw that was not disclosed intentionally at the time of purchase. If intel just made that information public when they found out, your argument would be valid. They could have also purchased different processors.
It seems like you are reading into it too much, the account only ever shilled for one company, not that it makes it okay, but that makes it more likely a personal affiliation rather than an admin for hire.
It seems you missunderstood me, I did not say they were for hire. But they were after money. And they got money by convincing students they can get internationaly accepted and sought for MBAs, while they were worthless in reality. And wikipedia was promoting that fraudulent school for 4 years, repeatedly deleting sources exposing the scam.
That was organized. And maybe they found new projects to work on after the old got exposed too much, or indeed freelance, sell out their wiki skills to other malicious actors. At the moment it is all not really clear to me.
This person made thousands of other legitimate changes, it seems a stretch to say someone would do all that just as a marketing tactic, that is a whole lot of effort for questionable results. I mean, how many people go to Wikipedia for college recommendations? How many people are going to attend a school they otherwise wouldn’t because they looked it up on Wikipedia? I’m sure it’s not zero, but we can’t be talking about many.
The article I linked claimed, that indeed quite a few persons in rural india believed wikipedia. Also labour in india is cheap, I doubt he did it himself, but payed someone to do it.
In general, many people do trust wikipedia. And PR companies get payed much more, to get some information inside.
Looks like parent reads "for hire" in the more specific "mercenary" meaning, and not in the very generic "old enough to be employed" sense you seem to use.
Theory, the simulation is a poor reflection of reality; Accurately simulating what it would be like to care for a baby is beyond our current technology.
I don’t think it’s beyond our technology, but it would be deeply unethical to lock a bunch of teenagers in a house and subject them to sleep deprivation and screaming for weeks on end.
If the point of the simulation was to deter pregnancies, I don't see how it could be successful without the biggest struggles of raising children being included. After all, people are willing to have children even when they are aware of these struggles, so reducing the struggles even a little would make having children seem more appealing, not less.
Hell, it's possible that teenagers naturally have a larger than reality aversion to having children, and these simulations break down the aversion, increasing pregnancies.
What is the point of infant simulation if the one of the most impactful part would be skipped?
The biggest parts of having a baby, for the mom mostly:
1) physical changes and pains during pregnancy, including lack of sleep
2) physical changes and pains during childbirth, including episiotomy/C section, and dealing with that recovery process
3) while this is all going on, you have to teach this baby to breastfeed. Which then leads to engorgement and other pains for the mom, at least for a few weeks.
And all of this is happening while you are on very broken sleep schedules. And assuming you do not have to worry about income/rent/etc.
>Without knowing what was allegedly said, this is difficult to judge.
You have the opposite reaction than what should be called for, if no one could even remember what was said then there is zero chance what was said was inappropriate.
