Completed my second arc tonight, and already 10% into my third. Roughly 19k words left on the body of the work, meaning I'm well into the final stretch. I'm happy with how the second arc turned out, but I'm glad I'm done with it -- there are two characters in the arc, and both of them are really tough to write for different reasons.
One thing that this past arc is a reaction to is a "Short Trek" episode I watched with my mom (who has always loved Star Trek) and it was about how religion is evil and if only you got rid of its evil and regressive influence you could be a starfleet super hero. I really hated that story, because it felt like it was about 70 years too late to even mean anything, and possibly 170 years too late to really be cutting edge. It's a story that the person who wrote that episode probably saw on TV as a kid and it was already outdated then.
For all I know I'm doing a shite job myself, but at least I'm *trying* to say something unique.
One thing that this past arc is a reaction to is a "Short Trek" episode I watched with my mom (who has always loved Star Trek) and it was about how religion is evil and if only you got rid of its evil and regressive influence you could be a starfleet super hero. I really hated that story, because it felt like it was about 70 years too late to even mean anything, and possibly 170 years too late to really be cutting edge. It's a story that the person who wrote that episode probably saw on TV as a kid and it was already outdated then.
For all I know I'm doing a shite job myself, but at least I'm *trying* to say something unique.
In many ways I could believe it. We've got some really incredible technology which makes us look back and think they were idiots, but besides being required to do math in their heads every day due to lack of digital calculators to do it for them, it seems clear there was a lot more mythology passed between generations from storytelling, and once the printing press arrived, reading was considered a major past-time, and of long books most people would never look at in between tweets today. Writers in genres like history were rock stars in a way that would seem absurd today.
Seems to me like there's a lot of stuff God doesn't want you to do that's possible. Adultery, creating carved images, stealing stuff, boiling goats in their mothers milk, Having Gods before that one, misusing the name of God, pretty much everyone has to work on the sabbath these days, really easy not to honor your mother and father, coveting is super easy, killing is pretty much how we all got here...
So we live in a world where sin is allowed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean it's something approved of by God.
So does that mean animal-human hybrids are something God would like or dislike?
No fuckin clue.
Leviticus 19:19 says not to breed different kinds of cattle, but most Christians don't think mules are evil (and the clothing you're wearing right now is almost certainly made up of several types of material, just check the washing label).
I do think that pre-epistemologically, creating something that's a little bit closer to a human than an animal is awfully squicky. How close do you get before you've created something that is effectively a human and must be treated like a human?
Even genetically modifying a pig to produce human-compatible organs might give some people a bit of squickiness. Like, you want to have body parts from a pig sewed inside of you? You know we slaughter and eat pigs (even though that's technically banned too) -- would you have a nice ham from the pig that gave you your new liver? The other thing being, the sort of feeling of profanity of using the liver (or god forbid stomach) of the pig to devour its own meat. Like, that's squicky, right?
Again, who knows? Maybe catgirls are God's plan for us!
So we live in a world where sin is allowed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean it's something approved of by God.
So does that mean animal-human hybrids are something God would like or dislike?
No fuckin clue.
Leviticus 19:19 says not to breed different kinds of cattle, but most Christians don't think mules are evil (and the clothing you're wearing right now is almost certainly made up of several types of material, just check the washing label).
I do think that pre-epistemologically, creating something that's a little bit closer to a human than an animal is awfully squicky. How close do you get before you've created something that is effectively a human and must be treated like a human?
Even genetically modifying a pig to produce human-compatible organs might give some people a bit of squickiness. Like, you want to have body parts from a pig sewed inside of you? You know we slaughter and eat pigs (even though that's technically banned too) -- would you have a nice ham from the pig that gave you your new liver? The other thing being, the sort of feeling of profanity of using the liver (or god forbid stomach) of the pig to devour its own meat. Like, that's squicky, right?
Again, who knows? Maybe catgirls are God's plan for us!
Incidentally, the fact that the middle east was lush forest within written history (the epic of gilgamesh talks about the great cedar forest in the middle east), and that northern europe was covered in ice helps us understand that climate change happens without our help, and from that perspective it becomes something we need to learn how to live with rather than something we should assume we can totally nullify.
Interestingly, even in the era of Uruk, killing the guardian of the great cedar forest was seen as something of a sin, and if the Gods hadn't granted their blessing then a great curse would have been cast upon them, similar to how killing the great bull of heaven ultimately led to Enkidu's death. It's a narrative far older than modernist thought.
The bronze age collapse was caused in part by a changing climate, and not just in Europe. The Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in India was buried under a desert, but it existed for a thousand years in a place where agriculture was practiced.
Arguably, some of these changes were caused by humans to an extent. The soil was degraded by agriculture in the Indus Valley, and the cedar forests were deforested. However, it was more than just that or something could have remained.
We obviously don't want to destroy our home ourselves and we need to do what we can to prevent those outcomes, we also obviously live on a planet that has changed without our help for billions of years and will continue to change without our help. Therefore, rather than just complaining that the climate is changing because we aren't sacrificing enough of our enemies to the Gods, we need to find ways to be resillient in the parts of our world that are presently "uninhabitable" because if history is any indication, the regions considered "inhabitable" and "uninhabitable" are inevitably going to change whether we sin against the environment or not. Given the past, it's equally likely that most of what we consider the "civilized world" today is under a kilometer of ice in another 1,000 years and we're all living in the lush Sahara basin region.
Interestingly, even in the era of Uruk, killing the guardian of the great cedar forest was seen as something of a sin, and if the Gods hadn't granted their blessing then a great curse would have been cast upon them, similar to how killing the great bull of heaven ultimately led to Enkidu's death. It's a narrative far older than modernist thought.
The bronze age collapse was caused in part by a changing climate, and not just in Europe. The Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley in India was buried under a desert, but it existed for a thousand years in a place where agriculture was practiced.
Arguably, some of these changes were caused by humans to an extent. The soil was degraded by agriculture in the Indus Valley, and the cedar forests were deforested. However, it was more than just that or something could have remained.
We obviously don't want to destroy our home ourselves and we need to do what we can to prevent those outcomes, we also obviously live on a planet that has changed without our help for billions of years and will continue to change without our help. Therefore, rather than just complaining that the climate is changing because we aren't sacrificing enough of our enemies to the Gods, we need to find ways to be resillient in the parts of our world that are presently "uninhabitable" because if history is any indication, the regions considered "inhabitable" and "uninhabitable" are inevitably going to change whether we sin against the environment or not. Given the past, it's equally likely that most of what we consider the "civilized world" today is under a kilometer of ice in another 1,000 years and we're all living in the lush Sahara basin region.
It's complicated. In The Graysonian Ethic, I have a chapter called "Failure is an option", and come to roughly 3 major conclusions:
1. failure is an option, and it sucks. No matter how smart you are, no matter how talented you are, no matter what your fundamental aptitude, if you do not put in the work you will fail.
2. Sometimes failure is an option through no fault of your own and you have to figure out what you are going to do about it.
3. Failure is an option. Sometimes it is an option worth taking, if failing today means winning tomorrow. It is very important that you are making a conscious decision to fail rather than just allowing it to happen using strategy as an excuse for not trying.
1. failure is an option, and it sucks. No matter how smart you are, no matter how talented you are, no matter what your fundamental aptitude, if you do not put in the work you will fail.
2. Sometimes failure is an option through no fault of your own and you have to figure out what you are going to do about it.
3. Failure is an option. Sometimes it is an option worth taking, if failing today means winning tomorrow. It is very important that you are making a conscious decision to fail rather than just allowing it to happen using strategy as an excuse for not trying.
Throughout the 1980s, China remained engaged in armed conflicts with both Vietnam and the Soviet Union, particularly along disputed border regions. These confrontations included significant skirmishes that continued into the late 80s. In some cases, what that looked like was artillery barrages hitting population centers. In more recent years, tensions with India have persisted, culminating in deadly clashes in 2020 during the Galwan Valley incident, where both sides suffered fatalities.
There's also been significant tension or territorial encroachments with other neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Bhutan, Nepal, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. There's some minor political tension with Mongolia.
You could argue that none of the things I mentioned were actual wars, but you could make the same argument against many of the things America was involved with. Troop movements into Iraq are considered wars on the top line, but military buildups around Taiwan are not considered wars on the bottom line. Peacekeeping operations are considered wars on the top line, but Chinese military operations against pirates were not. China also participated in UN missions in the 2020s just like America did, notably in South Sudan, Mali, and Lebanon. It's tough to say America is at war when they're on UN missions but China is not.
Moreover, as we've seen in Ukraine, the United States ends up getting dragged into conflicts through their de facto role as policemen of the world, and when they start to act as if they might stop the entire world screams in terror. Even China relies on the American military to keep shipping lanes safe or they could not remain a global manufacturing superpower like they are.
Interestingly, the war between Vietnam and China occurred because Communist Russia-backed Communist Vietnam invaded the Communist China-backed Communist Cambodia. Interestingly, this really is a story that goes back long before Marx or even the modern era, since Asia's politics reside in long memories.
And don't get me wrong -- as a Canadian, I have a genetic allergic reaction to defending US militarism, but we can't pretend China is actually a good comparison.
There's also been significant tension or territorial encroachments with other neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Bhutan, Nepal, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. There's some minor political tension with Mongolia.
You could argue that none of the things I mentioned were actual wars, but you could make the same argument against many of the things America was involved with. Troop movements into Iraq are considered wars on the top line, but military buildups around Taiwan are not considered wars on the bottom line. Peacekeeping operations are considered wars on the top line, but Chinese military operations against pirates were not. China also participated in UN missions in the 2020s just like America did, notably in South Sudan, Mali, and Lebanon. It's tough to say America is at war when they're on UN missions but China is not.
Moreover, as we've seen in Ukraine, the United States ends up getting dragged into conflicts through their de facto role as policemen of the world, and when they start to act as if they might stop the entire world screams in terror. Even China relies on the American military to keep shipping lanes safe or they could not remain a global manufacturing superpower like they are.
Interestingly, the war between Vietnam and China occurred because Communist Russia-backed Communist Vietnam invaded the Communist China-backed Communist Cambodia. Interestingly, this really is a story that goes back long before Marx or even the modern era, since Asia's politics reside in long memories.
And don't get me wrong -- as a Canadian, I have a genetic allergic reaction to defending US militarism, but we can't pretend China is actually a good comparison.
I ended up being an honorary Boomer because I bought a house in a depressed region and house prices have at least doubled since then.
And you know what? If house prices were to go down 3/4 and I lose a bunch of equity, I'm not even mad. I want housing to be cheap because you need a place to live. Of course everything is going to be super expensive when people need $1,500 just to rent a one bedroom apartment.
And you know what? If house prices were to go down 3/4 and I lose a bunch of equity, I'm not even mad. I want housing to be cheap because you need a place to live. Of course everything is going to be super expensive when people need $1,500 just to rent a one bedroom apartment.
The novel I'm working on right now is that a future where AI is more deeply integrated into us through neural implants.
Many of the AI based subplots are about the dangers a non malicious AI can pose, including the risks of having this frictionless access to a thing that can generate simulacra of virtually anything or anyone you want. Without a powerful ideological innoculation against addiction, many people could end up in the opium den in their own minds.
If you lose a loved one, would a mostly accurate simulation work to calm the pain of loss, or would the mistakes in the simulation just make you feel it more? Would you ever leave your simulation if that's where all your loved ones remained? And what sort of inoculation would you require to not fall into a trap like that?
Many of the AI based subplots are about the dangers a non malicious AI can pose, including the risks of having this frictionless access to a thing that can generate simulacra of virtually anything or anyone you want. Without a powerful ideological innoculation against addiction, many people could end up in the opium den in their own minds.
If you lose a loved one, would a mostly accurate simulation work to calm the pain of loss, or would the mistakes in the simulation just make you feel it more? Would you ever leave your simulation if that's where all your loved ones remained? And what sort of inoculation would you require to not fall into a trap like that?
It says attempted in one article but implies he succeeded in the other. Which is it? Did he fail successfully?
After the fall of our civilization due to our distance from God, I strongly suspect that the next St. Augustine will be writing about how we need to not glorify the past, and that it as abominations like creeper milk that led to its destruction, as an affront to God's natural law.
Creeper milk will be culturally considered the same way the carved penises that point to the local brothel in Pompei are considered today: an absurd and childish sign of the decadence of the fallen civilization.
Creeper milk will be culturally considered the same way the carved penises that point to the local brothel in Pompei are considered today: an absurd and childish sign of the decadence of the fallen civilization.
I compare what Trump is doing to the famous story of JCPenney. JCPenney was a mall slop store, and their core business model relied on pretending that all of their clothes were on sale when in reality that was just their normal price.
One CEO came in, and wanted to change the business model to low prices everyday. In my opinion, that was a good business move. Much bigger companies than JCPenney so have succeeded on low prices everyday, including Walmart and Target.
The problem is, there existing customer base expected fake sales and when they didn't see them they stopped coming. The result of this was a huge drop in sales.
A lot of advertisers take this to be evidence that you shouldn't make changes like that, and the return back and the ensuing recovery in sales is taken as an example of returning to normal after a bad decision.
The thing is, JCPenney still went out of business because that business model might have been making the money in the moment but it wasn't sustainable in the market that exists now. They needed to eat dirt for a few quarters and rebuild their customer base with people who weren't tricked by fake sales.
In the same way, it is entirely likely that high tariffs on countries like China will cause a major global recession. However, it's still the right thing to do. If the West wants to have things like labor law and environment regulation and reduction of carbon footprint they can't just keep on using China as a picture of Dorian Gray to cast all of our sins upon so we look like we're getting better by just getting them to do it for us.
Unfortunately, the two processes that are going on here don't act at the same speed. It takes seconds for an importer to call China and cancel their order, and it takes a couple quarters for that to burn its way through the economy. It takes years for a factory to be built, and after that it takes more years for it to get up to speed, to produce things at a profit, and to probably integrate into The national economy. Therefore, this really is an example of short-term pain hoping for longer-term game. Unfortunately, it's also an article of faith that it might actually work.
The idea that you can misread scary looking signs to be worse than they are is by no means a new one. In the epic of gilgamesh, the oldest story we have written down, has Gilgamesh and enkidu approached Humaba in the great cedar forest, and Gilgamesh had dreams that terrified him, but enkidu reassured him that they were actually signs of his ultimate victory, and he did ultimately prevail. Of course, in the same story and could do later interpreted his own dreams as a portent of his death and Gilgamesh tried to convince him that maybe the dreams meant something else but they did not, which shows that sometimes bad signs are just bad.
One CEO came in, and wanted to change the business model to low prices everyday. In my opinion, that was a good business move. Much bigger companies than JCPenney so have succeeded on low prices everyday, including Walmart and Target.
The problem is, there existing customer base expected fake sales and when they didn't see them they stopped coming. The result of this was a huge drop in sales.
A lot of advertisers take this to be evidence that you shouldn't make changes like that, and the return back and the ensuing recovery in sales is taken as an example of returning to normal after a bad decision.
The thing is, JCPenney still went out of business because that business model might have been making the money in the moment but it wasn't sustainable in the market that exists now. They needed to eat dirt for a few quarters and rebuild their customer base with people who weren't tricked by fake sales.
In the same way, it is entirely likely that high tariffs on countries like China will cause a major global recession. However, it's still the right thing to do. If the West wants to have things like labor law and environment regulation and reduction of carbon footprint they can't just keep on using China as a picture of Dorian Gray to cast all of our sins upon so we look like we're getting better by just getting them to do it for us.
Unfortunately, the two processes that are going on here don't act at the same speed. It takes seconds for an importer to call China and cancel their order, and it takes a couple quarters for that to burn its way through the economy. It takes years for a factory to be built, and after that it takes more years for it to get up to speed, to produce things at a profit, and to probably integrate into The national economy. Therefore, this really is an example of short-term pain hoping for longer-term game. Unfortunately, it's also an article of faith that it might actually work.
The idea that you can misread scary looking signs to be worse than they are is by no means a new one. In the epic of gilgamesh, the oldest story we have written down, has Gilgamesh and enkidu approached Humaba in the great cedar forest, and Gilgamesh had dreams that terrified him, but enkidu reassured him that they were actually signs of his ultimate victory, and he did ultimately prevail. Of course, in the same story and could do later interpreted his own dreams as a portent of his death and Gilgamesh tried to convince him that maybe the dreams meant something else but they did not, which shows that sometimes bad signs are just bad.
Takei is the same guy who said actions taken by the allies in a war against the literal third Reich were "fascist".
His takes would be taken out of a quarter gumball machine for being too worthless.
His takes would be taken out of a quarter gumball machine for being too worthless.
You know, I feel like one of the points of anything like the Olympics is to show what humanity is capable of, and whoever that was, that's pretty darn impressive.
There are so many individual movements there that I have never been able to do at any age and likely would not have been able to with any amount of training.
There are so many individual movements there that I have never been able to do at any age and likely would not have been able to with any amount of training.
One pet peeve I have is those devices that claim not to be vape pens, they claim that there's no vapor and that it's just flavored air.
Here's the problem: how exactly do you think air becomes flavored? Either a small amount of the chemical flavoring vaporizes under the mild vacuum when you suck on it, or small amount of chemical flavoring atomizes which is effectively the same thing for the purposes that they're talking about.
The key thing here is that flavor ends up in suspension, and then you inhale and it ends up in your mouth and down your throat and into your lungs.
Here's the problem: how exactly do you think air becomes flavored? Either a small amount of the chemical flavoring vaporizes under the mild vacuum when you suck on it, or small amount of chemical flavoring atomizes which is effectively the same thing for the purposes that they're talking about.
The key thing here is that flavor ends up in suspension, and then you inhale and it ends up in your mouth and down your throat and into your lungs.