Cosimo Galluzzi
h
Show & Tell
hello vonnie
noise dept.
đ
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
The Stonewall Inn
$LAYYYTER
tumblr dot com
PR's Tumblrdome
Interview Vampire Daily
if i look back, i am lost
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
â
art blog(derogatory)
shark vs the universe
blake kathryn
Love Begins
seen from France
seen from France
seen from Malaysia
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Russia
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from India
seen from Belgium
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Dominican Republic
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from TĂźrkiye
@arjan-de-lumens
oh and I got adderall
but due to the shortage it's normal instead of xr
how do I space 3 non-xr pills over the day?
Doing a quick search, one dose of adderall xr is apparently designed to produce the same result as two half-size doses of normal adderall taken 4 hours apart (see https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021303s026lbl.pdf , page 12).
âŚ
thewildwoodmoth
Has Google Gotten Worse? Why?
Google has gotten worse at finding things. For years, DuckDuckGo has gotten better at finding things, and people used DDG for months, but then there was this one search, and they went back to Google for a year.
Nowadays, DDG is good enough. But every now and then, there is something it canât find, and I use Google, and Google canât find it either.
Google was really unhelpful at finding copettiâs deep dive into NES architecture the last time I looked.
But more and more, I look for something on DDG, then on Google, then on Reddit to find the link that was posted in 2013, and I follow the link, and the page is not there any more.
I complained about this before, with respect to games studies academia, as games studies was very fond of blogging and replying in comment sections over conference papers, and now that stuff is just gone.
More and more often I Google something and find nothing while DuckDuckGo has it, or I Google something and I realise that itâs gone from the index because itâs older than five years. But even more often, I realise that itâs gone from the index because the content is not there any more.
Web sites are dying, and we arenât even realising it. Even if DDG still has it, the link leads nowhere.
So maybe DuckDuckGo has gotten better, but Google hasnât gotten worse. The World Wide Web has. And that means DuckDuckGo in 2022 can never be as good as Google was in 2008. There is just not enough good old web content left to find.
Iâve been noticing something similar lately - when I try to search for obscure or oldish technical information, search engines like Bing and Yandex are finding useful things that Google isnât finding, with Google returning results that strike me more and more as, if anything, frustratingly imprecise.
For your example, typing âcopetti nes deep diveâ into these engines gives me what appears to be the NES architecture deep dive as the first hit on both Bing, Yandex and DuckDuckGo, while Google instead turns up Copettiâs analyses of Nintendo 64 and Playstation 2, as well as âdeep divesâ into things like Norwegian fjords and Metroid Dread - with the NES deep dive gone from its search results altogether.
Are there any known numbers whose digits are 1) infinite, 2) non-repeating, 3) uncomputable? Like pi, if there were no convergent series we could use to get better and better approximations. Feels like we got lucky with that one.
The two first criteria are easy: infinite but non-repeating decimals arise from basically anything thatâs a real number but not a rational number, e.g. things like sqrt(2) and sin(1). The third criterion - numbers that are well defined but not actually computable - is a bit trickier, though. The usual approach I see when people try to come up with definable but uncomputable numbers is to do various forms of enumeration-over-all-turing-machines trick, leading to things like Chaitinâs constant and the Specker sequences.
Humans were injected with the vaccines we now know to be effective around 3-4 months after the viral genome was published. That's just absurdly fast. And those things are platforms, if the thing works with this sequence it'll work with any sequence! And if this doesn't have much side effects other sequences won't either! And the development time is just bound to get even shorter. We are much closer to the fictional thing you read than you think.
Iâm pleased to hear that, because if the next time around itâs an avian flu with ten times the lethality weâre definitely going to need it!
In the case of flu specifically, this has been kind of a solved-ish problem for a fairly long time - with the big flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968, it took only about 4 months to go from initial identification of the virus to mass production and deployment of vaccines, in large part due to the efforts of one Maurice Hilleman (Â https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-man-who-beat-the-1957-flu-pandemic/ ):
Hilleman sent virus samples to six American-based companies that produced influenza vaccines. Flu vaccines had been available since the mid-1940s, so researchers werenât starting from scratch in 1957. Yet if there was âany hope of saving American lives, he would have to convince companies to make and distribute vaccine in four months. Influenza vaccine had never been made that quickly,â Offit wrote. To do so, Hilleman ignored federal drug regulators: âI knew how the system worked,â Hilleman said. âSo I bypassed the Division of Biologics Standards, called the manufacturers myself, and moved the process quickly.â
The first flu vaccine lots were produced in June, within weeks of Hillemanâs request. Vaccinations started in July. The influenza pandemic hit the U.S. in early September (just as Hilleman predicted). Forty million doses were given over the next three months. Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and public health regulations require safety and efficacy tests for new vaccines, which take more time, though the FDA can authorize drugs under an Emergency Investigative New Drug category.
Massive potential loss of life, as Hilleman realized, calls for high-level action.
Comparing that to the situation we have now - mRNA technology does appear to make still faster turnaround times possible for a much wider class of viruses than just influenzavirus, but the speedup doesnât seem *that* large - I seem to recall Moderna and Pfizer estimating a turnaround time of about 100 days for mass shipments of vaccines against omicron.
which countries have gone the longest without fighting a war on home territory? this is a terribly vague question that inevitably devolves into definition wrangling, but thatâs kind of the point really, isnât it.
Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, et al. approximately 0 days
South Korea the 2010 bombardment of Yeonpyeong and sinking of ROKS Cheonan
Former Yugoslav Republics the Yugoslav Wars that occupied most of the â90s
United Kingdom war against the IRA that lasted till the Good Friday agreement of 1998, otherwise the bombing by Germany during WWII
China either its brief war against India in 1962, or border clashes with USSR in 1969, or invasion of Vietnam in 1979 and subsequent border incidents, or the ritual shelling of Kinmen which lasted for decades until the US reestablished ties
Vietnam various Indo-China wars that continued until 1975
France the Algerian War until 1962
America does 9/11 count? otherwise WWII fire balloon bombs sent from Japan (!)
Australia bombing of Darwin by the Japanese during WWII
Canada bombed and torpedoed during WWII, and the North-West Rebellion in 1885
New Zealand the wars between British and Maori that lasted until 1872
if you ignore minor bomb attacks then Australia/Canada/US havenât had any wars since the 19th century, really.
If the IRA counts then surely conflicts with militias and organised crime also count? The US government was at war with the african american civil rights movement until at least 1968, same with various mexican drug cartels now
I guess we can narrow it down to one recognised state against another, although this would exclude the Chinese civil war, or we can narrow it down to combat between soldiers, which is probably a better proxy measure for actually experiencing war in the homeland.
If we use the âcombat between soldiersâ definition, the correct date for the US is 1943 (Battle of Attu).
Within Europe, I think the country with the longest absence of battles is probably Sweden (1809).
I think itâs questionable whether the Aleutian islands are considered part of the US homeland, although I guess that question gets more thorny for Puerto Rico.
For a question like this, Iceland comes to mind - from what I can find, the last actual combat between soldiers in Iceland appears to have taken place during the Sturlung Era (1220-1262), a period of violent conflict between Icelandic family clans.
This case is probably subject to some definition wrangling, though - from 1262 to 1944, Iceland was not an independent country; also, Iceland did get invaded by British forces in 1940, although this does not appear to have involved any actual combat.
the problem with having subterranean mole people too deep in the crust/mantle is that at a certain point the extreme pressure would make any open space collapse (I assume), but water is pretty incompressible and if itâs under enough pressure it will stay liquid even at very high temperatures, so maybe what I should really hope for is subterranean crystalline fish people.
As I understand it, a major problem for super-deep underground life forms is that the decomposition temperature of DNA is fairly low - according to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236457118_Thermal_degradation_of_DNA , about 190C for complete destruction in 5 minutes under dry conditions, about 110C in water and decreasing with increasing pressure. (There are a few microorganisms that can survive a little bit higher temperatures, such as Methanopyrus kandleri at 122C, but these require very high ionic concentrations and some fairly extreme DNA repair mechanisms.)
Combined with the thermal gradient of the Earthâs crust, which appears to be about 15-30 kelvins per kilometer, and it becomes rather infeasible for anything DNA-based to live deeper than about 10-12 kilometers below ground. (Consistent with this, deep-underground life forms have been found in e.g. the Mponeng gold mine, 4 km below ground, but not in the much deeper boreholes of e.g. Kola, 12 km below ground, or Windischeschenbach, 9 km below ground)
Thing i can kind of understand: why it might be hard for a jury to decide that itâs beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who waited until he was aggressed against to shoot people committed *murder*
Thing I absolutely canât understand: why the circumstances under whicďżźďżźh he went there arenât relevant to *something* at least
Like, even if *Murder* was the wrong charge for the foregoing reasons, surely he WAS clearly intending to terrorism?
I still find it insane that Rittenhouse isnât old enough to go into a convenience store and buy beer but he IS old enough to carry an AR-style weapon, apparently.
Yeah. Shit like that really needs to not happen. Iâm so mad at the people who work so hard to make any mention of âgun controlâ synonymous with âno one can subsistence hunt.â
People should not be bringing guns to protests for any reason.
In principle agreed, but judging from the events at Kenosha, that ship appears to have sailed a long time ago.
(At the actual Kenosha incident, at least two of the guys chasing Rittenhouse had guns of their own that they brought out - Joshua Ziminski, who fired a warning shot just before Rittenhouse shooting the first time, and Gaige Grosskreuz, who testified in court that he was pointing his own loaded gun at Rittenhouse at the time when Rittenhouse shot his bicep off. Also, the videos of the last of Rittenhouses shootings feature at least 16 gunshot noises that are not attributable to Rittenhouse or any of his assailants - see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html )
SCIENCE TUMBLR, EXPLAIN!
Hello that is a touch lamp and basically it uses something called capacitors to turn off and on. Capacitors in touch lamps store charges and when those charges are altered, they activate an oscillator responsible for turning the lamp off and on.
Humans have what is called body capacitance; we can store tiny electrical charges in our bodies and use them to activate touch sensors (which is why your phone's touch screen works, too, and why it won't work if you're wearing cloth gloves that aren't conductive), for example, altering the charge in a capacitor like the one in this lamp.
The cat doesn't have enough body capacitance to set this lamp off, but it IS conductive enough to relay a human's charge. So when the human makes contact with the conductive bare skin of the cat's nose, their charge travels through the cat to the lamp through their toe bean, activating the lamp. Fur is not conductive, so it won't do it when the human just pets the cat.
This explanation was all very sensible until âtoe beanâ and I am giggling with pure delight XD
Iâve tried to find empathy and compassion for this child who has been taught to be a hateful racist and a violent white supremacist, and I just canât.
He murdered two people. He crossed state lines with an assault rifle and he used it to murder two people. At seventeen years-old, this child felt he was entitled to grab his fucking ASSAULT RIFLE and take his too-young-to-buy-cigarettes self to another state, so he could carry out his white supremacist fantasies.
And here he is, drinking in a bar with Proud Boys, joyfully making a white power sign, after a sympathetic judge let him out of custody before trial.Â
The kid who was crying yesterday? That kid isnât crying because heâs remorseful for murdering two people and trying to murder a third. That kid is crying because his lawyers coached him to manipulate the jury thatâs probably going to let him walk, anyway. If there is any real emotion behind this kidâs crocodile tears at all, itâs fear of accountability and prison.
Donât be fooled. Donât forget who this person is or what he did.
This is why I canât figure out why people think thereâs a question here.
The other side seems to be saying âhe went there to commit violence, but then decided not to commit violence, but then decided to do it anyway because someone else threatened him.â
Itâs not that this is obviously impossible. But what evidence do we have that this was his thinking? He didnât drop the gun, or apologize to people, or take any obvious action that showed heâd changed his mind, so why are we being expected to assume he did/called brainwashed lefties if we donât assume he did?
Itâs POSSIBLE you could tell me you love Jesus yesterday, watch some episodes of The Atheist Experience today, and deconvert by this evening. Sure. But if I meet you for dinner, Iâm not being prejudiced if I assume youâre still devout.
If thatâs what prejudice is, no human behavior should be considered predictable at all because itâs possible for people to change their minds quickly.
Iâve seen a handful of comments around Rittenhouseâs tears that seemed to recognize them as looking more like a ptsd-like trauma flashback thing (as if from recalling having something horrible done to him) rather than a guilt/remorse thing (as if from recalling having done something horrible).
If that is an even remotely correct reading, then it would seem to me to be consistent with his apparent lack of remorse - if he has ended up viewing the whole situation as one where he is someone who survived bad people trying to do bad things to him, it seems quite understandable that he would have trouble seeing why the deaths of the âbadâ people should be something to feel remorse about.
Iâm kinda assuming that something like this is a line of thinking thatâs present in the mind of a lot of the people who sympathise with him as well - and part of why so many of his sympathisers make such a big deal out of the criminal records of the people Rittenhouse shot dead when itâs so obviously not relevant to the question of whether he committed self-defense - if they are imagining themselves in his situation, then killing âbadâ people makes for a strong good-vs-evil perspective, but killing âgoodâ or even ânormalâ people introduces a ton of unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
The thing about the Critical Race Theory kerfuffle is, look, I won't sit here and blow smoke up your ass and pretend I don't have problems with the way that a lot of left-wing groups think about race in America. You can name those problems too.
But the Republicans pulled a Humpty Dumpty here.
Imagine if someone was like,
"Man, I hate anime. Anime has had a negative influence on animation and it's way too influential. I hate anime like Dragon Ball Z, Minions, and Boss Baby. They're always trying to market these obnoxious cutesy characters to us."
And then you went, "Uh, two of the things you just named aren't anime"
And they went, "Oh! So all of a sudden you're going to try to tell me anime has no impact on modern animation? After years of talking up anime and saying it's this amazing other way of doing things all of a sudden you're trying to pretend that anime's just some meaningless little side thing? We all know it's a huge industry which most animators cite as a major influence but as soon as someone criticizes it you pretend that it's not a big deal, you're an absurd hypocrite and everyone can see it!"
Like, no, man, you're just using the wrong word, anime has a more specific meaning than, "Cartoon I don't like"
Same with Critical Race Theory; as best I understand it, before the Republicans got their hands on it, it was defined as a subset of legal scholarship and legal history scholarship; but the Republicans just blatantly ignore that definition and use it to mean, apparently, "All left-wing talk about race that I dislike"
Here's an article from the Federalist where the author does not understand some incredibly simple statements from Ibram X. Kendi.
"I admire critical race theory but I don't identify as a critical race theorist," Kendi said.
Kendi says he's inspired by Critical Race Theory, but, not being a legal scholar, he's not a Critical Race Theorist.
This is the simplest goddamn thing in the world and the guy writing this article just cannot grasp it.
"Paul Simon was inspired by African musical traditions so therefore he must be an African Musician, and anybody who objects to that characterization is being disingenuous!"
That's exactly analogous to what this Federalist article is arguing at great length.
Like, I'm sorry, this is not an honest way to conduct a conversation, it's deeply obnoxious and I resent being told that I should gloss over that because the 1619 project is also really obnoxious or something.
Yes, I do feel like "being able to confront the issue of historical racism healthily and productively in an educational context" is a worthwhile goal for every education system that I can think of, yet the counterargument for CRT seems to be "CRT is only going to make the problem worse by indoctrinating a generation of innocent children into an intellectual and moral framework which foists a burden of white guilt upon them (probably true) and the only way to stop this from happening is to stamp out all mentions of racism in the classroom (blatantly untrue).
"This particular solution will suck, therefore all possible solutions to this problem will suck forever and must be avoided at all costs."
â... it was defined as a subset of legal scholarship and legal history scholarship....â
Yes that is where it originated. Do you believe that it has had no influence beyond that. Such as a critical race theorist, Kimberle Crenshaw, trying to integrate it with Marxist feminism and thus developing âintersectionalityâ which became the cornerstone of third wave feminism....
â Kendi says heâs inspired by Critical Race Theory, but, not being a legal scholar, heâs not a Critical Race Theorist. â
So CRT canât be part of the Frankfurt School of Marxism because it wasnât developed in Germany!
Have you considered using a fire extinguisher on your pants?
âPaul Simon was inspired by African musical traditions so therefore he must be an African Musician, and anybody who objects to that characterization is being disingenuous!â
If I learn to play anime theme songs am I, or am I not, playing Japanese music?
Lots of Americans would call the constitution foundational to their understanding of law and what law should look like, and that document was written by slaveholders and incorporated slavery into the law, so that means...
Uh oh.
This post is from June, but itâll probably keep being relevant for months, if not years.
Are people using the term CRT to mean something wildly outside of the scope the term originally had, when it was first coined? Sure, thatâs probably most of the use cases now.
Are some people using it as a generic anti-Democrat boo light? Absolutely.
But hereâs the deal:
There is a cluster in thingspace, a pattern of behavior that exists. I remember seeing examples of it back in 2013, when I didnât have a tumblr account yet, and was mostly browsing this site via /r/TumblrInAction. When the term âcultural Marxismâ first appeared, it seemed like a good fit to me, for that pattern of behavior. Namely, trying to push every human interaction and group on one of the oppressor-oppressed scales. Male vs female. Cis vs trans. White vs everybody else. A crude approximation of a crude approximation of Marxâs class dynamics.
Of course, using that name now gets one laughed out of the room. Oddly enough, Iâve seen a non-mocking explanation of why itâs an incorrect term only once. Years ago some orthodox Marxist wrote a comment on some subreddit saying, in short, that culture is part of the superstructure and Marxism concerns itself with material base, so âcultural Marxismâ is an oxymoron. That explanation is good enough for me. Shame that nobody bothers with it, and instead everybody just amps up the sneering when someone dares to utter the phrase.
But the term being oxymoronic doesnât mean that that pattern of behavior doesnât exist! The map is not the territory, and erasing the map marker wonât make the mountain disappear into thin air.
And now itâs in schools, now itâs in DEI corporate seminars. Teaching people that race is the most salient quality of a person, and a determinant of their moral value. Teaching people that abstract concepts like punctuality or empiricism belong to âwhitenessâ. Teaching people that the should always be aware of their and other peopleâs race, a direct reversal of cultural trends from the 90s.
These are the things that exist, these are the things that happen quantitatively and qualitatively different from how they happened before.
And so, now that theyâre a more distinct cluster in thingspace, there will be attempts to name it.
Someone on twitter coined âsuccessor ideologyâ, it didnât caught up. If it did, there would have been attempts to shoot it down. CRT did catch up, and so there are such attempts.
The strategy of the Democrats claiming that CRT can only mean a highly specific academic term, or that it doesnât exist, etc. is to make people unable to name The Thing, and as such to be less effective in noticing, discussing and contravening The Thing. You, Kendi, and everyone else knows exactly what people saying they âoppose CRTâ mean.
Kendi and the Democrats just want them to be powerless to oppose it. You, I sure hope not.
The strategy of the Democrats claiming that CRT can only mean a highly specific academic term, or that it doesnât exist, etc. is to make people unable to name The Thing, and as such to be less effective in noticing, discussing and contravening The Thing.
exactly
CRT is a thing that has traits and is referred to by the name CRT
until mid 2020, every single person involved agreed on the use of CRT to name the thing that is referred to by the name âCRTâ and did not say âuh no thatâs actually a highly specific thingâ
every person understood White Fragility to be an example of CRT
every person. they would argue in defense of CRT or opposition of CRT but all agreed that the thing they were talking about was referred to by the name âCRTâ
now that republicans at large have found it, suddenly itâs become âno no CRT is not a real thing and also itâs very basic and foundational and everyone should support it but also itâs a very highly specific thing nobody knowsâ
okay, if you object to using CRT to name that thing, what is the name weâre supposed to use to refer to that thing that exists?
the answer we get is âit isnât real, shut up, youâre racistâ
also endlessly hilarious: people spouting off about how stupid and lazy and antiintellectual and full of conservative red meat the anti-CRT curriculum bills are, and how stupid and evil it is to try and ban a thing named CRT because they will just argue that anything that says racism is bad is CRT and thus banned... when the text of these bills never mentions CRT, they just list off a bunch of obviously completely unacceptable behavior, and every person involved knows âbanning this unacceptable behavior is an attack on the ability to teach CRTâ because that unacceptable behavior and the utterly psychotic ideology backing it is the thing that is referred to by the name CRT!
This has an amusing amount of symmetry with conservative complaints about the use of âassault riflesâ in gun control elements.
Anyway, the problem with using a term as elastic as CRT is that it definitely also refers to a cluster in thingspace when conservatives use it that *arenât* as unobjectionable as the above would suggest. I believe the term around these parts is âmotte and bailey.â Given Americaâs tendency to whitewash its own history, the sack of shit I was fed by my history teachers as a child, and conservativesâ tendency to take offense when any crime of Americaâs is mentioned, even when they are indisputable historical fact, I hardly think we need a legislative push in the other direction.
Seriously, who looks at American history education - at any history education! - and says, âyou know, the natural bias here is towards admitting fault on behalf of the intellectual and political forebears of those running the country now. We really need to put our thumb on the scale to make sure weâre not too far biased in the direction of admitting fault.â
at this point you know you're being dishonest, you have to, so stop
bans on "assault weapons" result in nonsensical categorizations of irrelevant traits being lumped together because they make a gun look more gunny but don't affect its function or don't do so in a major way. it is not that "assault weapon" is the wrong name for the category, it is that the category doesn't exist, and there is no thing that is referred to by the name assault weapon
the CRT bans are about clearly defined and clearly wrong and clearly abusive behavior that is all closely ideologically associated with the same group of people and the same group of theories. these abusive behaviors are things that this group of people will not stop doing.
and when you summarize it as "why do we need a push in the direction of not admitting wrongdoing?" by this point enough people have told you over and over and over that you know you are lying. please stop lying.
the thing that is referred to by the name CRT is abusive, insane, and 100% wrong. it is the ideology of white nationalism except it thinks being a "race traitor" is good and morally obligatory. if you aren't willing to drop that thing like it's a 500-pound maggot hotter than the surface of the sun, then there is something clearly wrong with you
like this is not a thing where they go after something that seems inconsequential and use it as leverage to go after core protections or civil rights. this is something where they have correctly identified some of your guys doing insane, abusive, unconscionable shit, and you keep trying to justify it.
The statement that these two phenomena are identical -- that woke circlesâ sudden pretense that âCRT is a tiny narrow technical definition that no one really uses and up until this moment we didnât eitherâ is the same as the rightâs pretense that gun control isnât allowed because of some absurd definition of âassault rifleâ that they just suddenly pretended to care about -- is an interesting test of rationality and honesty. âYou canât ban Our Thing because semantics that we just made up! Ha ha! I am so clever and sincereâ
Because the statement is true -- trivially and obviously, itâs exactly the same bullshit, and for exactly the same reasons -- but people whoâve been suckered by propaganda are going to have an emotional freakout about some part of it.
âHow dare you point out that My People are lying, when we tell extremely blatant lies! How DARE you!!!â uh have you tried not getting really invested in believing lies just because they came from people you identify with
No.
Assault rifles, the thing the term "assault weapon" is based on, are already generally banned from civilian ownership in the United States. Ownership of automatic weapons is highly restricted.
The "CRT bans" don't mention the words "Critical Race Theory" and generally ban crap like teaching kids they're inherently racist or oppressive due to their race.
If the Republicans successfully banned that garbage throughout the United States, and this ban was generally well-enforced, and Republicans kept going, then we could say the two things were more comparable.
All you're doing with this post is covering the ass of the Democrats' race cranks, and their unfalsifiable crank race science, which distracts from those few interventions that actually do provide some improvement of racial outcomes.
Gun laws favored by Republicans are also much, much less damaging to society's epistemics. Republicans do not run around claiming that guns are part of a vast undisprovable subconscious racial conspiracy.
I feel like thereâs two things going on here: there is indeed a wide ranging flagrant misuse of terminology, both in the direction of claiming it canât apply because a narrow formal definition excludes it, and in the direction of claiming everything under the sun is included. There is also a denial of misdeed by both sides, the narrow disavowing all bad actors, and the wide refusing to admit that their net is false. These of course are not the only sides and both can employ either strategy in pursuit of their ends.Â
The thing I find fascinating about this is that whenever someone, like myself, says, "Critical Race Theory has a specific definition which doesn't match it's use in, e.g. that Federalist article, is that a million people come out of the woodwork to go, "Oh, so all of a sudden you're trying to pretend that nobody has ever used the term before and nobody has been influenced by it in any important way?!"
No? That doesn't follow at all.
I literally posted an article where a man literally says he's been influenced by critical race theory and people are shouting "Why are you trying to say you haven't been influenced by Critical Race Theory?!?!"
Look, if Critical Race Theory is a specific academic discipline, with well-defined borders, then asking Kendi if he's within those borders is a perfectly cogent question, to which he gives a perfectly honest, non-evasive answer.
If, on the other hand, Critical Race Theory just means "Stuff about race we don't like" then asking someone if they're a critical race theorist is an absurd question, because it's synonymous with asking, "Do you write stuff about race that I disagree with?" to which the only sane reply would be, "I don't know, do I?"
I don't believe (although perhaps I have been sloppy) that I have denied that Critical Race Theory has been influential, I've just claimed that the term has a specific meaning.
The Governor of Virginia has just said that we need to get Critical Race Theory out of schools because it teaches that some people are always victims because of their race and some are always victimizers.
The only Critical Race Theorist I can name, Kimberle Crenshaw, is famous for writing a paper about how it would be a mistake to view social ills purely through a racial lens and we absolutely shouldn't do that.
In other words, the only piece of self-identified Critical Race Theory I've read explicitly supports the new governor's position.
Does it matter what people actually say? It feels like it should matter.
In the year 2019, anyone who identified Kendi as a critical race theorist would have received lukewarm "yeah" assent. Critical Race Theory was agreed by all parties to be the name for the ideology of Kendi, Diangelo, the 1619 Project, et al.
This was the name that was used to refer to that thing.
Republican normies discovered the name CRT and the thing that is named CRT in 2020. At that point, and not before that point, your tribe decided that the thing that is named CRT never had the name CRT, and anyone referring to the thing that is named CRT by naming it CRT is wrong at best and a stupid evil racist at worst, because Real True CRT is this very narrow unobjectionable idea.
Not only have you refused to supply a new name to refer to the thing that is named CRT, EVERY SINGLE TIME you see someone talking about the thing that is named CRT you scoff and pretend they are speaking gibberish because their description does not match the new description of CRT you have created. You do not speak about the thing that is named CRT, you deny and minimize not only its existence but the fact that other people are talking about it.
CRT is its name. We all agreed it was named CRT. They are using the name it has to refer to it, and all you are doing is pretending that they can't be referring to the thing that is named CRT, because you changed the definition under them.
People have explained this to you dozens of times but you will not, ever, be fucking honest about it.
@brazenautomaton we run in different circles. I had rarely heard the term "Critical Race Theory" before the Republicans decided that it meant "Every left-wing writer I don't like". Can you name the sources for, say, Kendi being described as a Critical Race Theorist? I asked you this before and have just gotten this repeated "Nobody said Critical Race Theory was a branch of legal scholarship to before 2015!" without an actual citation, which I'm sure you have.
Yeah think @brazenautomatonâ is just blatantly lying here, 1619 project was published in 2019, the first spike in critical race theory is mid-2020
Robin DiAngelo stuff was referred to as âDEIâ and some other buzzwords and phrases but âCRTâ is a scare phrase that iâm guessing some right-wing activists to try and re-run âcultural marxismâ stuff with the connection with âCritical Theory.â
That spike is what it looks like when normies discover something. The term wasn't widespread because the concepts and conversations about it were not widespread. I was getting into arguments about it and r/TumblrInAction (before it turned into what it is now) was talking about it years ago. The last time I had this argument I was only able to dig up one post on my tubr mentioning it unvontroversially, but given that that post isn't even showing up now on a siikr search, I think something made a fucky-wucky in general
I also know when the kerfuffle over CRT happened in 2020, I already knew that to be the name of this thing and went "finally we're talking about this"
Taking a quick look, by typing into google:
âcritical race theoryâ site:slatestarcodex.com
(to pick a reasonably-searchable site where this sort of thing seems likely to have been touched upon in the past without having been lost, scrubbed or buried somewhere along the way), I get about 30 or so hits for the exact phrase going back to about 2014 or so, from a variety of comment section writers, several of whom do seem to use it in a manner similar to present-day Republicans, e.g:
â.. about how overnight, critical race theory went from a mostly dismissed fringe belief to enforced dogma.â (2017)
âItâs all âleadership in LGBTQQIP2SAABBQWTFBDSM social change organization safe spaces implementing paradigms of inclusive critical race theory writing grants grants GRANTS!ââ (2015)
ââWhite supremacyâ, used to mean âdoesnât slavishly accept every last derivative of critical race theory as gospelââ (2017)
So yeah, this use of âcritical race theoryâ does seem to have been a thing long before Chris Rufo et al started their efforts to mainstream it.
Maria Passer/Anadolu Agency/ - Vorkuta, Komi Republic, Russia - An inside view from snow and ice covered abandoned building in Severny region in Komi Republic. The extremely cold climate in Vorkuta, where temperatures can be as low as minus 50C (122°F), and unemployment have led to an exodus of people, turning some settlements into ghost cities.
Australia has had 800 coronavirus deaths, 600 of which were in aged care; no women under 50 have died of the disease.
12 months on we're up to 1,178 deaths, which is worse than New Zealand and Finland and Norway but better than a lot of other places.
The UK was above that per day in February 2021. Fucked up, really. Does Australia still have closed borders? China is doing well too, with occasional outbreaks that they seem to have the grip on, mostly. You really can't let the virus take holds or you'll never get rid of it with politically feasible means it seems. Just look at the UK. yoyo.
I've checked out of keeping up with the numbers since it's all So Much.
Australia still has closed borders and strict quarantine, although clearly not strict enough to keep delta out.
China appears to be the only country that has succeeded in beating delta outbreaks by relying on preemptive mass testing instead of just contact tracing.
Mass testing seems to be becoming the preferred approach here in Norway as well - e.g. in the city of Oslo, where thereâs lately been a lot of delta in the schools in particular, theyâre keeping the schools open but doing twice-per-week testing of all schoolchildren; so far, this seems to be working, in that the number of new cases per day is dropping fairly quickly.
cannot actually find a clean mathematical test for whether a given triangle is an ear of its respective polygon or not, and itâs driving me crazy
@notthedarklord42 Maybe something like a concavity test? If thereâs a line from a vertex of the triangle which is outside the polygon except that it touches another vertex not sure I understand what you mean by ear of the polygon but that feels like it fits?
So Meistersâ Two Ears Theorem (which like all good theorems was actually discovered by someone else) states that every simple polygon with more than 3 vertices has at least two âears,â an ear being a triangle formed by 3 vertices where only one side of that triangle is a diagonal of the polygon. You can progressively remove ears to triangulate a polygon, which is useful if the polygon isnât totally convex, and so fan triangulation might not work.
If any angle formed by point p and its neighbor points p+1 and p-1 is >180 degrees, then the triangle (p, p+1, p-1) canât be an ear, and if another vertex in the polygon lies inside the triangle (p, p+1, p-1) it also canât be an ear, but I donât know if those two tests by themselves are exhaustive. Even if they are, in the worst case scenario youâd have to test not only every angle formed by the triangle and every vertex in the polygon for being inside the triangle, which seems so inefficient I feel like I must be doing something wrong.
As I recall it, this inefficiency is pretty much inherent to ear-clipping based algorithms for polygon triangulation; one can make it go somewhat faster with various tricks with sorting or space partitioning, but youâre not going to easily get something consistently faster than O(n^2) running time for general simple polygons that way.
For faster algorithms, have a look at sweepline algorithms that subdivide the polygon into trapezoids, construct monotone polygons from these trapezoids, then triangulate those monotone polygons (see e.g. https://piazza.com/class_profile/get_resource/ixpmc0cgd8q5iy/j0i0fath8dr523 ); such algorithms can generally reach O(n log n) time, and can be extended to work with non-simple polygons (with holes and self-intersections).
These algorithms, while seemingly not too complex description-wise, can be a lot of work to write, though; expect several weeks of work (and years of bugfixing if you donât have a robust enough test-suite to begin with) and several thousand lines of code, especially if you aim to make something thatâs both robust and efficient for general polygons ... for robustness in the general case, there are a lot of extremely unpleasant crazy-making degeneracy cases to deal with, e.g. with multiple vertices in the same point, multiple polygon-self-intersections in the same point, edges that lie exactly on top of each other for part of the edge, edges that almost lie on top of each other but are spaced apart only by floating-point rounding errors, polygon topology changing due to floating-point errors, sometimes toggling back and forth between two topologies, producing a million false self-intersections spaced apart by 1 floating-point unit-of-least-precision etc etc
Some road that goes somewhere, Kimmo Ojaniemi
All these Critical Race Theory laws that are getting tabled by GOP localities seem to be going âAnd you must never teach that America was racistâ which is fucking incomprensible, the only conclusion you can draw from that is âWhat fucking bar do you have to clear to be âracistâ then?ââÂ
Shh, shh shh. Whatâs important is that Critical Race Theory is bad and scary and pushed by brainwashed elites.
As long as weâre properly against it, what we actually teach about history or write in the law books doesnât actually matter.
As much as I take stories about people saying creepy nonsense and calling it Critical Race Theory seriously, when I see the actual laws lawmakers put on the books theyâre always what I sort of call, âCome on, you know who we meantâ laws.
These are laws that are written so broadly that if taken seriously as written they would have major consequences for everyone, but they were written with the understanding that theyâd be enforced selectively only against an unpopular minority.
Like, e.g. I remember some law in the UK saying schools couldnât use materials provided by groups that had broken UK law⌠Which was immediately contrasted with some MP saying that there was no way to do Brexit in a way that followed current laws.
But of course the lawmakers didnât really mean anybody who broke the law, just the scary left-wing anarchists indoctrinating your children.
The point isnât to articulate a better or even minimally coherent theory of history, itâs to show your constituents that no commie racists are going to indoctrinate their children.
These are laws that are written so broadly that if taken seriously as written they would have major consequences for everyone, but they were written with the understanding that theyâd be enforced selectively only against an unpopular minority.
the ones I have seen, which admittedly are not many, and not the more recent ones, are the exact and literal opposite of this: they are taking laws against being racist and teaching racist things and saying âokay but they ACTUALLY DO like apply to everyone, you donât get to just say youâre not allowed to be racist and define it so your racism doesnât count, you ACTUALLY canât be racist from an official platformâ
For this sort of discussion, Iâm kinda feeling like it seems worthwhile to have present some of the actual text of these laws and not only second-hand claims. The ones Iâm aware of are fairly short, e.g. the Oklahoma one is about 400 words, which seems short enough to be worth inlining in full (Â http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENR/hB/HB1775%20ENR.PDF ):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1. NEW LAW
A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 24-157 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows
A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex shall be prohibited.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education shall promulgate rules, subject to approval by the Legislature, to implement the provisions of this subsection.
B. The provisions of this subsection shall not prohibit the teaching of concepts that align to the Oklahoma Academic Standards.
1. No teacher, administrator or other employee of a school district, charter school or virtual charter school shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:
a. one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,
b. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,
c. an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,
d. members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,
e. an individualâs moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,
f. an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,
g. any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex, or
h. meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race. Â
2. The State Board of Education shall promulgate rules, subject to approval by the Legislature, to implement the provisions of this subsection. Â
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 2021. SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like Iâm a bit puzzled as to how to interpret this kind of text as âyou must never teach that America was racistâ. I suppose one could interpret the last sentence of section 1.A.1 in such a way - to mean not just as a ban on teaching in a biased/stereotyping manner but also a ban on presenting historical and present-day examples of bias as well - but given the thrust of the rest of the lawâs text, this seems like a rather strained interpretation? Or maybe there are items that are present in some of the other âanti-CRTâ bills that are missing from the Oklahoma one?
So once again, re this Israeli / Palestinian thing: I gather that one reason for it is Israel evicting people. But whyâs it doing that? Whatâs their stated reason?
Iâm not usually on the side of people who do that, as someone who works hard for housing access, but I still feel uneasy that I havenât been able to find why.
Someone told me it was planned long ago, which is info I appreciate having, but how was it planned and what did they say about it at the time?
Again, I think Iâll be unsympathetic whatever it is, but... I once had someone ask me to save her from eviction when a guest f hers stabbed someone, and it was literally in the lease that violence by guests was grounds for immediate termination. so I Couldnât do much whether or not I wanted to.
Hence, what are the rules here? Acknowledging that they may well turn out to be unfair crapola.
From what I can find, the evictions in question are part of a long-running property dispute:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_property_dispute
which appears to be something like - a group of Jews apparently buy a handful of houses in East Jerusalem in 1876, get kicked out in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the houses get filled with Palestinian refugees from elsewhere in the warzone, Israel takes back control over the area in the Six-Day war of 1967, allows the former owners to reassert ownership, they start demanding rent from the Palestinians living there, the Palestinians refuse to pay, eviction attempts start in the 1990s/early 2000s and the Israel Supreme Court was supposed to pass a ruling on some of these evictions on May 10 but has postponed the ruling by a month. This court case has led to protests, that have then exploded.
