Random Thread

[Man in Space]

In college I was given to using Arabic letters for variables at times.

But did anyone understand you?

No one ever complained.

Did you turn in assignments with Arabic letters for variables in them?

Yes.

[Richard W]

In college I was given to using Arabic letters for variables at times.

But did anyone understand you?

No one ever complained.

Did you turn in assignments with Arabic letters for variables in them?

Yes.

To people who hadn't retreated to 'Mathematics is meaningless marks on paper'?

[Travis B.]

The closest I'd ever gotten to that is systematically using slashed-0's in my assignments in AP Calculus in high school.

[Man in Space]

I was never chastised for using it, if that’s what you mean. I think they figured out intuitively enough what I was doing and treated it like any other stand-in for a thing I wanted to express.

I did have one professor who, in hindsight, I ought to have reported to the administration. If you happened to use (their idea of) incorrect notation, you’d be docked points. This includes when using arrows to aid the reviewer as to my train of thought, so that they didn’t have to guess. You would be marked down for misusing “set notation”. But I don’t recall her complaining about it…in hindsight maybe that is what saved me there, as these bizarre letters aren’t really used in maths, so there was no standard convention they’d be conflicting with.

[Raphael]

Want to trend twice at the same time on a social media website? Put a diacritic that confuses speakers of diacritic-free languages into your name!

mbapp.png (2.5 KiB) Viewed 2362 times

[malloc]

[Putting this in random thread because although about US politics, it's rather speculative]

Everyone knows of course that I am quite pessimistic about the MAGA regime falling anytime soon. But this is primarily a world-building forum rather than a political one, which raises the obvious question: what would it take to overthrow Trump or his successors and restore democracy? Let us assume above all that Trump and his followers defend their power with everything they have rather than ignoring obvious options to achieve their goals.

Looking at historical parallels, the most obvious and straightforward path to defeating MAGA is defeating them in another world war. Much as it might satisfy us to imagine Trump or perhaps Vance holed up in a bunker, this is far from trivial. Currently the US spends about as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. Now obviously, wars are not fought with bags of money and simply spending that much does not guarantee victory. Nonetheless it does suggest the relative strength of the US compared with other countries and implies that it would take quite a massive coalition against an isolated US to have any hope of winning.

This also assumes, of course, that liberal democracies take the lead in defeating the US and have the option of building a new democratic state. An authoritarian regime like China would have no interest in restoring democracy and would probably just impose a puppet government. Depending on how badly the US treated them and their views on foreigners, they might well exterminate the American people in revenge. Thus we must assume a coalition led by liberal democracies like Western Europe and parts of Latin America and Asia with authoritarian regimes like China as secondary players.

Many will object that the US has lost numerous wars over the years, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iran just recently, despite its massive military and would likely fair poorly against an entire coalition of belligerents. This objection fails to consider the dramatically higher stakes of world war as compared with wars of choice against smaller countries across the ocean. The stakes of the latter are national pride and access to resources, while the stakes of the latter are nothing short of existential. The MAGA regime would have every incentive to fight a world war to the bitter end since losing would mean the overthrow if not execution of everyone in charge. The superior military power of the US would prove decisive since Trump would have every reason to use it to its full extent, particularly once the equivalent of D-Day arrives.

Having said all that, there are many factors that could tip the balance in favor of the democratic coalition. An isolated US would undoubtedly suffer from economic decline which would erode its tax base and thus ability to fund the war. Furthermore the MAGA regime currently suffers from anemic support with approval ratings for Trump in the thirties according to some sources and certainly no higher than the forties. Such chronically low morale, likely to worsen when isolation tanks the economy, would hamper the war effort. Though admitteldy the endurance of Russia in its war with Ukraine despite economic isolation and mounting casualties demonstrates that these are hardly guaranteed to bring down the MAGA regime.

[zompist]

Jeez, stop reading WWII comics. No one is going to invade the US.

Though I'm not interested in your wet dreams about MAGA, it's already pretty clear what the rest of the world would do with MAGA: ignore it, as they're doing already. Trump has been destroying alliances, weakening the military, tossing out US soft power, and showing that he can neither defeat a third-rate power, nor defend the oil states that he and his associates love. Russia is busy losing its own war with Ukraine; it's no longer a superpower. That leaves two major powers: Europe and China. Neither seems to be keen on being imperial powers, though they'll work to keep their way of life going.

A very very high-level prediction is that if the US keeps kneecapping itself, the world in a hundred years will look a lot more European plus Chinese. With India as a wild card.

Fascists, unlike conservatives, have a terrible track record on maintaining power. I suggest you pretty quickly wire up your God-Emperor to immortality machines, because he is in fact a declining, half-senile shell and yet is more popular than any of his possible successors.

[malloc]

Fascists, unlike conservatives, have a terrible track record on maintaining power. I suggest you pretty quickly wire up your God-Emperor to immortality machines, because he is in fact a declining, half-senile shell and yet is more popular than any of his possible successors.

The original fascists fell out of power because they lost WWII, except for Franco who stayed out of the war and remained in power until his death. Popularity means little with sufficient electoral rigging and divided opposition. I realize that this is quite a touchy subject that you really want me to avoid so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[WeepingElf]

Fascists, unlike conservatives, have a terrible track record on maintaining power. I suggest you pretty quickly wire up your God-Emperor to immortality machines, because he is in fact a declining, half-senile shell and yet is more popular than any of his possible successors.

The original fascists fell out of power because they lost WWII, except for Franco who stayed out of the war and remained in power until his death. Popularity means little with sufficient electoral rigging and divided opposition. I realize that this is quite a touchy subject that you really want me to avoid so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fascists, of course, tend to stay in power for a long time not because the people like them and re-elect them again and again out of their own volition, because fascist governments don't give the people the option to vote them out, and intimidate the opposition such that the people shut up for fear of being imprisoned (or murdered) for "political crimes". That's the main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, after all.

Trump, however, is not only a buffoon and a lame duck who can't run again in 2028; he also is a symptom of the current problems rather than the cause. The Republicans have been yanking the country towards dictatorship whenever they held the White House since God knows when, and the Democrats only halted the trend but did not very much to yank the country back when they held it (don't get me wrong - they did achieve some progress, such as the New Deal, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, or the recent legalization of same-sex marriages, but most of these reforms were later cut back by Republican governments, they were often driven towards the reforms by the people in the streets; also, more effective reforms than what they achieved would require an amendment of the Constitution, as something like the New Deal would now be flatly considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and they never had the supermajority they would have needed for that). So the country has become more and more authoritarian in the long run, and it is now close to crossing the line between democracy and dictatorship. (Yes, I have lost faith in U.S. democracy decades ago; the country looks more like an "electoral autocracy" to me, where elections are free but there are massive deficits in rule of law and public welfare, compared to Western European countries.)

All this, of course, are ramblings of left-leaning foreign observer who doesn't really know U.S. politics well, and I may be wrong.

[linguistcat]

I saw the Conservatives on the news talking openly about "The Deep State". Not sure what kind of sign that is but it sure is a sign of the times. (If they've been doing this openly for a while, then ignore. I only catch snippets of mainstream Conservative news from my father watching it now and then.)

[Raphael]

I saw the Conservatives on the news talking openly about "The Deep State". Not sure what kind of sign that is but it sure is a sign of the times. (If they've been doing this openly for a while, then ignore. I only catch snippets of mainstream Conservative news from my father watching it now and then.)

They've been talking about that for a fairly long time by now, I think.

[malloc]

Fascists, of course, tend to stay in power for a long time not because the people like them and re-elect them again and again out of their own volition, because fascist governments don't give the people the option to vote them out, and intimidate the opposition such that the people shut up for fear of being imprisoned (or murdered) for "political crimes". That's the main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, after all.

Quite. Currently the Trump administration is working furiously to consolidate its hold on US political institutions and undermine free and fair elections. If they succeed, it will hardly matter if most Americans hate them. Even if any one approach to securing their dictatorship fails, they just have so many options that success seems almost guaranteed. Against both an incumbent administration and most wealthy people, what chance does a divided and propagandized populace even have of restoring democracy?

[WeepingElf]

Fascists, of course, tend to stay in power for a long time not because the people like them and re-elect them again and again out of their own volition, because fascist governments don't give the people the option to vote them out, and intimidate the opposition such that the people shut up for fear of being imprisoned (or murdered) for "political crimes". That's the main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, after all.

Quite. Currently the Trump administration is working furiously to consolidate its hold on US political institutions and undermine free and fair elections. If they succeed, it will hardly matter if most Americans hate them. Even if any one approach to securing their dictatorship fails, they just have so many options that success seems almost guaranteed. Against both an incumbent administration and most wealthy people, what chance does a divided and propagandized populace even have of restoring democracy?

It's not impossible. The people in many Soviet bloc countries have achieved it, too. It is not simply done by voting the government out, though.

[Raphael]

From the Happy Things Thread, years ago:

Happy thing: Latest publication finally went online.

Ok, I've only now clicked the link. So it's possible to construct synthetic cells now? Why didn't anyone tell me?

Well, not fully, but the idea with the review is to look at the progress in replicating the functions of cells. Synthetic protocells have been pretty achievable, but full cells... well, that's Boss Man's ultimate goal, but we're quite far from that point.

Looks like now, someone's done it:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... scientists

[malloc]

It's not impossible. The people in many Soviet bloc countries have achieved it, too. It is not simply done by voting the government out, though.

Perhaps, although technological innovation presents some new and difficult challenges for non-electoral resistance. We now have to contend with highly sophisticated forms of surveillance and military drones. Previous dictatorships could certainly crush revolts with extraordinary brutality but they still required word-of-mouth to find dissidents and mortal soldiers to shoot them.

Also, some pretty horrible news coming out of Europe with over three thousand people dead from extreme heat over the past few weeks. Not sure where this should go, but I feel it needs acknowledgement.

[Man in Space]

Independence Day is coming for those of us in Eagle Land. I used to look forward to it. I don’t anymore.

[WeepingElf]

It's not impossible. The people in many Soviet bloc countries have achieved it, too. It is not simply done by voting the government out, though.

Perhaps, although technological innovation presents some new and difficult challenges for non-electoral resistance. We now have to contend with highly sophisticated forms of surveillance and military drones. Previous dictatorships could certainly crush revolts with extraordinary brutality but they still required word-of-mouth to find dissidents and mortal soldiers to shoot them.

On the other hand, the people can now inform themselves and network over the hard-to-censor Internet. So I don't think modern technology makes it really easier for dictatorships to keep the people under control. On one hand, it provides for better surveillance; on the other hand, it provides for better means to circumvent that surveillance.

Also, some pretty horrible news coming out of Europe with over three thousand people dead from extreme heat over the past few weeks. Not sure where this should go, but I feel it needs acknowledgement.

Well, it is now obvious to most people that there is something wrong with the climate, and something has to be done about it. Every single freak weather event further weakens the positions of the climate change denialists and inactionists.

[malloc]

On the other hand, the people can now inform themselves and network over the hard-to-censor Internet. So I don't think modern technology makes it really easier for dictatorships to keep the people under control. On one hand, it provides for better surveillance; on the other hand, it provides for better means to circumvent that surveillance.

Maybe so. Nonetheless, one of the obstacles facing my conworlding and writing efforts has been figuring out a convincing explanation for how the reactionaries lose in my setting. They seem remarkably resilient in the face of scandal and crisis, weathering everything from Brexit to January 6th and even managing to increase their popularity. It seems increasingly difficult to imagine anything at this point that could discredit them. Certainly it would take a catastrophe that even omnipresent propaganda cannot disguise and which even the uneducated can understand.

[WeepingElf]

On the other hand, the people can now inform themselves and network over the hard-to-censor Internet. So I don't think modern technology makes it really easier for dictatorships to keep the people under control. On one hand, it provides for better surveillance; on the other hand, it provides for better means to circumvent that surveillance.

Maybe so. Nonetheless, one of the obstacles facing my conworlding and writing efforts has been figuring out a convincing explanation for how the reactionaries lose in my setting. They seem remarkably resilient in the face of scandal and crisis, weathering everything from Brexit to January 6th and even managing to increase their popularity. It seems increasingly difficult to imagine anything at this point that could discredit them. Certainly it would take a catastrophe that even omnipresent propaganda cannot disguise and which even the uneducated can understand.

I admit it is not easy, but trends towards the worse tend to break and reverse when things become too bad. Like what happened in the Soviet Bloc in the 1980s, beginning with Gorbachev's reform attempts which were motivated by how badly the Soviet economy performed. (Gorbachev was an economic bureaucrat who knew from his daily work just how bad the situation actually was and that something had to be done to prevent the system from collapsing. It turned out, though, that it was too late and he could no longer prevent the collapse; but at least, he created a more liberal political climate which allowed the people to overcome their fear of repression and rally in the streets demanding democratic reforms.) I also have a near future conworld (which I have not talked about much here so far because it is all still very much under construction and it doesn't feature any conlangs) in which the current reactionary trend indeed breaks and reverses. In this conworld, a group of progressive activists invites other progressive groups from all over the world to a "Global Progressive Action Round Table", and they form a mighty alliance which manages to turn the table, and after several years, a "Global Spring" sweeps all major and many minor authoritarian regimes away.

[alice]

Also, some pretty horrible news coming out of Europe with over three thousand people dead from extreme heat over the past few weeks. Not sure where this should go, but I feel it needs acknowledgement.

Well, it is now obvious to most people that there is something wrong with the climate, and something has to be done about it. Every single freak weather event further weakens the positions of the climate change denialists and inactionists.

I may be overly cynical here, but until the ever-increasing profits of Very Large Corporations¹ are seriously threatened, nothing which will make a meaningful difference will actually happen.

¹ Principally in the energy and tech sectors, but I'm sure you can think of others.