Jump to content

James Arryn

Members
  • Posts

    16,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James Arryn

  1. Why him less than Sir Sagramore?
  2. Oh, enjoy. Jealous of the first time read. So weird, I would swear this thread was the first I’d heard about this…I even clicked on it thinking ‘nah, this will be something else’ because for some reason this series is a bit of a secret. Maybe it’s the ~ supernatural element unique to these (for him) though it’s extremely sparse for an Arthurian work?…wow, long tangent between eclipses that I already overuse, anyways, was going to say that the weird thing is in the past couple days I had seriously toyed with a TWK reread for my next non-mystery fiction read, but decided against because I’d just reread AGOT a few books ago. I guess maybe “ so weird” was overselling it, but a topical coincidence at least.
  3. The novel has black characters. Written like 30 years ago. By a (very nice) man (I have corresponded with) whose politics are…not super-left, let’s say. His yacht is called The Royalist if that gives you any indications.
  4. Cheers. Yeah, it’s not fun. My dad had them bad too, but around 50 they just went away, so here’s hoping that happens. Having twin toddlers with a migraine is, er, not sure what my crime was but I strongly feel I have done my time.
  5. I’m more vague on the actual project itself, but I had to do research about the decision to drop the bomb, mostly from communiques and the journals of people like Stimson. I encourage no one to pursue similar understanding; one of the most depressing things I’ve ever read. The agreed upon narrative (that they dropped the bombs to save lives) was ‘ a relatively minor consideration’ at the time, and no two people agreed on what effect it would even have on that. Anyways, it was well behind revenge, return on investment and especially getting it over before the Russians became too involved in the Pacific to disentangle afterwards without risking US dominance of the region. But the naked racism in official communications was the most surprising. As often as not ‘Japs/Jappos/Nippers/etc. were used instead of Japanese. Really dark part of history. The most interesting thing about the agreed upon narrative was that it took years to be circulated as such…for a while no one pretended much of anything, and revenge et al was more or less accepted. One of the reasons they even began worrying about the public perception of ‘why’ was because the scientists who worked on the project staged a secret strike once they found out it was intended for civilian targets. They had been assured such would never happen, and it really became a kind of big deal behind the scenes. I wonder if this will cover that, though to be honest I doubt Oppenheimer was amongst the strikers. edit for accuracy: I should also mention that US allies were also raising objections, though mostly at ~ the same level as th scientists. Ie, for example Brits but definitely not Churchill. Hell, Churchill wanted to keep using them.
  6. It still freaks me out that at one point there was a chance the chain reaction doesn’t dissipate, or rather the fuel doesn’t burn off quickly enough or becomes redundant, and they decided…for the rest of the ignorant planet…to risk everyone else without their knowledge or consent. That’s gotta be some kind of record when it comes to arrogance.
  7. Humidity, or rather the pressure systems that usually accompany it, are one of my main migraine triggers. Rough year.
  8. Myself, I’m eagerly awaiting the angst about ‘woke’ Sagramore. Bernard Cornwell, recast as leftist activist. It’ll be grand.
  9. Love, love, love this series. Great news, much appreciated. Edit: trailer’s not inspiring, but that’s not reliable.
  10. Good news: unionized workers actually increased in the US in 2022, up 200,000. Unions are one of the very few checks on concentration/disparity, and almost the only ones in the hands of the actual electorate, so that’s good. Bad news, first, the % actually went down to 11.4% from 11.8, as the bulk of new jobs were non-unionized. Still, the US has been single digits for much of the post-Reagan period, so overall not all bad. But… …the worst news, according to the EPI, is that tens of millions more wanted to/tried to join a union but were unable to. And a lot of that is because corporations now often have built-in anti-labour mechanics that should be illegal, some are in many countries but international corporations have ways to game those systems to a degree too, so…I’ve seen economists propose that Covid lead to a surge in enthusiasm for collective bargaining, but as that crisis wears off so too will the pro-union moment. America is just so hard-wired about ‘socialism’ that the outlook is pretty grim.
  11. Robber-baronial/warlorism/enclaves of power are and always have been the direction pure capitalism aims and the more we deregulate and weaken anti-trust reflexes and other corrections for that built-in impetus, the more societies will reflect that aim. Ironically Russia is probably the purest example of that kinetic, and the West /mostly US’s prioritization of winning over aftermath and the infamous Cold Bath approach t post - Cold War Russia has been a huge factor in why the country is what it is today. This in no way excuses Putin, to be clear. In the same way Versailles definitely helped create/shape the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany but in no way excuses their actions.
  12. Much appreciated, and apologies for the insensitivity of the way I phrased the question. It’s not like I forgot this was your everyday life I was asking about like it’s an interesting academic curiosity. Not meant that way, but upon re-read I can see it potentially coming across that way. Anyways, to your response, are there any solutions that you see? Because it seems like your frustration is in part with the futility of trying to help with increasingly little wherewithal to do so. About the perception, I agree that medical people statistically are also abnormally high when it comes to serial killers…sorry, I missed if the discussion was about this specific aspect, but it is a real thing so if I’m just rehashing let me know…without the concurrent communal perceptual disgrace. I am not sure why that is. Otoh, I am not sure if that is the primary cause for antipathy to the police, or rather more contributing to the perpetual slide. I know there’s a ton of Met shit right now so that might be bigger in your frame than mine over here in Canada. My own explanation for med people and cops being statistically high in serial killers is it makes perfect sense, in three ways. First and highest, predators go where the prey is vulnerable, if you get me. Second, though somewhat linked, both professions come with a lot of control over others and that’s a lot of what attracts serial killer personality types in a general sense, so pretty baked-in imo. Third, if you take your average latent serial killer, and constantly expose them to suffering and carnage and destroyed bodies, etc. I’m sure that kind of immersion has to raise the potential development. And then allow for those serial killers who are mostly nurture, well, two pretty desensitizing fields, no way around it. So I guess my own ~solution to this aspect would be to be self-aware of these heightened probabilities via procedure, for example include more randomized internal checks, eliminate the capacity for problematic employees to just keep moving locales, ie red flag the fuck out of incidents worthy of suspension/termination even if that’s asking mid-level civil servants to prioritize public safety over public relations and deal with the activities the same way you would if a member of the public wandered in and ‘accidentally’ administered lethal doses of insulin, for example. Which they’re unlikely to do. And more relevant to police than medicine, the ~ morality neutralizing effect of the us vs. them besieged mentality that in my experience come as an extreme if understandable bi-product of the culture/realities of the profession, that’s imo a direct factor but I have no idea how to change that, it’s part of the engine. I think maybe look at countries where there is less of that and see what they’re doing better. I think on the service to force spectrum the UK is closer to the ideal than the US, possibly Canada even, so that’s gotta help. But otherwise…er, you MUST hit a quota of non-police related friends? You must see the worst of humanity but not think it? Like I don’t know how you correct for these things, mechanically. Possibility my perception here is even out of date, and that social networking has reduced the herd/pack mentality. That would also be encouraging. But for police who are guilty-by-association the latter might help with what must be very mixed feelings about your role, your relationship with the public, etc. ie not feeling the professional collectivity would also reduce the sense of collective guilt and therefore make the ‘fuck you, don’t stereotype me because of my profession’ feeling/expression come easier and less qualified. But can the job be done without that sense of kinship, and ~ isolation from those who don’t live that life? I doubt it. Soldiers eventually come home, cops have already internalized coming home and going back as part of the process. Oh, should have been said earlier, feel free at any time to remind me I was apologizing earlier for musing about your day to day reality like it’s an essay subject, or thinking that I have any credibility dissecting a profession from the outside. I am really not thinking that way, it’s just a tone my writing takes while I’m writing while trying to think something through. I can fuck off about this anytime you like, in other words. But if anything I’ve said strikes a chord, all the better. But getting back to medicine and policing, for the reasons I think both professions are always going to be attractive to serial killer types, that’s just part of how they’re wired. Society gives more power to roles society deems need that power to help it. And that power itself becomes an asset/attraction to certain personality types. Usually in more benign ways, but the effects of a collection of those attracted thus are imo inevitable. Again, increased self-policing (I mean as a profession, not heart searching, lol) in a observational/patrolling type of way rather than just post-incidental process way makes it more dangerous and therefore mostly less attractive to that type of mind. But it adds more potential headaches to everyone else in the service, so I doubt it’ll be well received. Might not even survive legal objection or union protest.
  13. Being effete in no way prevents winning at golf.
  14. Serious question for you, not trying to catch you up, I’ve often argued that policing is important enough to raise the training/requirements but also the pay. My assumption is that the latter in particular should reduce things like moonlighting burnout, corruption and the like. From your POV, forgetting for a moment where the money will come from, do you think that’s correct? And I mean significant reduction, not marginal. Is that pie in the sky?
  15. I have believed the reports that Russia invaded Ukraine. Is that propaganda? I have believed that people have died in the invasion. Is that propaganda? Literally nothing else matters to me no matter how often you keep insisting it does. You are talking to someone who argued vehemently against every American invasion of his lifetime, so insisting that I’m the victim of propaganda sounds like projection to me.
  16. You know what we want more than we do? If any of the shit you were saying made sense, how did Putin get away with it for so long? No one did much when he took Chechnya, no one did much about Georgia, the Crimea, Donbas, etc. but finally, partly because the US was finished with it’s own adventurism, but more because it was becoming obvious that Putin was going to keep expanding, the world began to pay attention. If the West was obsessed with Russia, it’s an awfully intermittent obsession. And, last time, we do not need to say Ukraine is older than Russia. No one needs to say that because being older is not a rational excuse for a violent invasion. Only you and people excusing this war under outdated-a-century-past ideology that imperialism is its own excuse keep needing to talk about it. We do not see that as remotely relevant to the discussion. It sounds to us like if you explained that the invasion was reasonable because Russians are on average 0.4 cm taller than Ukrainians. It sounds insane. But if it’s also factually challengeable you should not be surprised that people will also argue the point, because debate. But you are confusing us with people like yourself when you think that we think either country being older should give it the right to conquer the other.
  17. Of course you realize we need none of these things. I’ll explain this to you simply: Russia has invaded another country and people are dying as a result. That’s all we need to know.
  18. The sentencing guidelines basically have this down to math. If the sentence given was outside the range established by the guidelines, then there’s an argument*. If it was at either extreme of the guidelines recommendation then there’s maybe an argument, but weaker. Otherwise not. You can look it up yourself if you have access to an FSG handbook, or otherwise you can find it online. I haven’t ever done that, so I don’t know how reliable this calculator is, but it’s the us sentencing commission’s, so I’d guess pretty solid: https://guidelines.ussc.gov/grc The media always relays potential sentencing by talking in terms of maximums, and this creates the false impression that max sentences are the norm. It’s very much not, in fact it’s usually only given to repeat offenders or if the crime committed was exceptionally serious for that crime. *Edit: to be clear, I mean a moral, ethical or logical argument, not a legal one. I have spent too much time in my life arguing with conservatives about how their feelings about how horrible the criminal is do not excuse exceptional mistreatment under the law.
  19. Nah, I get Larry’s concern, the idea of retrofitting sentences w/o established error is one of those ideas that only sounds ok when it’s pointed at someone you disagree with. As a general practice I think this causes a lot more trouble than the difference in sentences will ever affect. I think the sentences should have been much higher too, but that was an error in judgment, not law so far as I understand it.
  20. I think it’s his throat, possibly through the gorget, in the books. Or is that the show? One is through the back, the other the throat, can’t remember which is which offhand.
  21. Cat gets things wrong, but outside her (imo borderline unforgivable) repeated decision to punish a child for his father’s actions while effectively forgiving the father, her choices almost always have some understandable thinking or at least motivation. What I find really interesting is the way GRRM uses her general competence and intelligence and unquestionable decency (same caveat) as a person to get us to not notice her unreliability in some areas. For example, though a Southron lady herself, she has over the years adopted Northern prejudices and perspectives. She sees ‘knights of summer’ despite the fact that these silly southern swordlings both destroy Stannis’ army and have a long history of fighting just as hard and tough as Northerners. Her attitude towards Renly’s strategy is not ‘what is his best course of action for his own success?’ but rather what is best for Robb and she reveals that to him pretty early in the conversation. Whereas several of the best strategic thinkers in Westeros think Renly has adopted a great and ~ unstoppable strategy. She looks at slow moving and tourneys as distractions from the real fight, but that’s again under the assumption that marching immediately on KL is the best course of action, but that’s only the most helpful for Robb, it’s completely wrong for Renly, all undoes the great work he has done sustaining the morale and logistics of the winning army to rush to make the same mistake Stannis (and Jaime, though to be fair Jaime at least had no way of knowing an enemy army might be anywhere remotely near) makes, getting caught in a siege with an enemy army in the field. And without even Stannis’ actual need for urgency to, if not excuse it, at least make it an understandable gamble. Time is working against Stannis, but it is doing the exact opposite for Renly, he has by a mile the strongest army, and greatest logistical situation and base, and despite or arguably because of his strategy and Southronishness his men undoubtedly love him and are in extremely high morale. Time is working for him. Or, as Sun Tzu puts it, ““To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” And, again, he was winning. Barring the first deus ex machina moment in the main text, he is king, the Lannisters are destroyed, Robb is probably subject to the IT but retains the same royal stylings (for now) that Dorne does, and the 7K are fairly unified and pacified to deal with the Others. But it would not make for great reading…the war with the Others might prove un-winnable without dragons, but that’s no more of a criticism of Renly than anyone else at the time. But that aside his taking and securing the IT would be the kind of inexorable campaign that, say, Phillip conducted in ~ kicking the English out of all their territory in France barring Calais. Fun reading for military historians, but probably bloody boring to most everyone else. And besides, Renly had the ultimate black mark against him: he was not amongst the characters GRRM wanted to be a factor in the war of ice and fire, and the sudden demise of otherwise inevitable victory by Shadowbaby is supposed to be dramatic both because of it’s introducing magic into the Game part of the story and in showing that, because of new factors like magic, things normally ~ guaranteed in a worldly sense like Renly’s inevitable victory are anything but certain in this new supernaturally active setting. But Cat knows none of that, she just presumes they will be less effective because they are moving slowly (the right move), having tourneys and melees (the brilliantly right move) etc. instead of rushing to error because it would be better for Robb, and because like a good noble wife in Westerosi setting, she has absorbed and adopted the perspective of her husband’s land, including prejudices that blind. Because Family comes first in her house words, in her heart and in her analysis, and GRRM uses that to make Cat maybe the most understandable and (initially) least easily identified unreliable narrator in the text, great writing. So great that many readers still don’t see how her thinking and conclusions here were superficial, prejudiced, and just plain wrong and have been demonstrated as such. In part because brilliant George has used readers’ sympathies to get many of us to unwittingly absorb the same northern prejudices. But, ironically, with the Brienne/Jaime/Tyrion move, she is both literally and figuratively putting all her eggs in a basket of Southron chivalry, an aspect that imo doesn’t get enough commentary. These kinds of wild swings of logic seem at least understandable because of her being generally smart, competent, perceptive, etc. but occur because (like Ned, ultimately) family always comes before everything else…honor, duty, and when necessary, reason and objectivity.
  22. Ohno, what if someone nearby, there was a rabbit? What if we unwittingly watched Ned’s actually impressively long second life as a bunnywarg meet it’s end as Joffrey’s entertainment?
  23. On Wemby, the 27 points, the crossovers, the turnaround, the effortless rebounding, all that, but I’ve watched interviews with nba players/former players, coaches etc. who have seen him in person, and they all say, yeah, that stuff is all insane, but what he actually is a different species is the way he distorts opposing players sense of how much of a window they have. His combination of athleticism, speed, and length with instincts, and as one nba player I watched said ‘Players are not going to be able to process how much room he covers how quickly, with that length, they are going to know they have windows based on careers at high level basketball, but they are going to be wrong. And I don’t know how teams or coaches or players are going to adjust to that. ‘Be more apprehensive when shooting/driving/dunking/passing/etc.’ is not exactly a way forward. There were moments where he legit looked like a man playing with kids. Not all the time or anything close, but there are times when he just looks on another level, mostly around the net, rebounding at either end, that kind of thing. So the obvious answer is his frame and can he take the pounding, but in an interview he said the opposite, that in France he got hit/fouled a lot more often, a lot harder, that the game there is more like earlier defence first eras in the NBA, that the biggest challenge is the generally higher level off athleticism and talent, how much faster the game moves, but on the physicality…now this IS summer league, but still in terms of style of play the NBA is a lot more open and fluid and much less physical, grind it out as what he’s used to. Lastly, and as a ~ Rockets fan, this is going to hurt a lot moving forward, but just for Wemby’s career, he could not have gone to a better organization. They invented load management, they stress wholistic physical training, health and development over satisfying fan/league demands, and they are sitting him for game 3 with just that in mind. He might only play 50 something games this year even injury free. Meantime they’ll be developing his body with a long-term outlook in mind. Seems like a match made in heaven. He even seems to have an old school, humble, respectful personality so far that fits Pop more than maybe any other current head coach.
  24. I thought she killed that pigeon before Baelor/Headless Ned. Like I think that’s how that chapter starts, with the pigeon.
  25. 1) 1867, de facto…1981 or similar de jure. 2) Aside from again making the kind of comment I mentioned earlier, why is there a ‘fair chance’? 3) And superpowers were cheek to jowl in Europe; they expanded elsewhere. Most modern conquest has actually been non contiguous.
×
×
  • Create New...