#pedantry

[vintage-tigre]

[criticaldiplomacyfail]

like the thing about sargon in arknights is that hypergryph fucked up right from the getgo, lumping all of africa AND the middle east AND also some of mexico into an imperial power that is, in regards to the minoan conflict, unambiguously the aggressor. if you're on boards with arknights thesis that empire and genocide is bad then sargon is just... the villain. so they made the CONCEPT of africa and the middle east a villain on par with the british, russian, and american empires. like i'm not opposed to the ottomans as villains, they were a big fuckin' empire, but like... we needed MORE diversity representing africa and the middle east.

but even acknowledging that clusterfuck i really don't think we should lump varkaris in with patrizion and skybox? patrizion and skybox's racism is because they are actively involved in supporting racist and colonial regimes. it's not RACISM to hate an occupying imperial force and it kinda makes it harder to talk about racism in any depth (particularly wrt actually FIXING the harm caused by it) if you just sand it down to "hating people from another country". varkaris is just the PRODUCT of existing racism in the writing; he is not in himself any more racist than Titi or Pallas. the NARRATIVE supports racism through the justification of a european man's hatred for Every Arab And African On Terra; but the hatred is not in itself a depiction of racism because of the power dynamics at play.

[westi]

Parenting :D

[victusinveritas]

[openbagtwo]

Let This Be A Warning

If you come into Joe's chat with pedantry, best make sure your logic is rigorous.

Transcript:

[In response to a message (not from me) about HermitCraft using a "custom seed"]

The seed isn't custom. What do you mean, "custom?" You can't make a custom seed. It's just a sequence of numbers. It's an integer. A seed is an integer. You can't make a custom integer.

[Some shmuck comments "Ahkshully, Joe, I'm pretty sure it's a long not an integer"]

Uhh, Open. Bag. Two. [damn, I got triple-named], I'm pretty sure if it's a non-decimal, non-fractional number, if it is a number-line number, it is an integer.

If you want to narrowly define integers because you bought the wrong computer instead of a math textbook, then that's on you, but don't put your problems on me. Your poor purchasing choices are not my burden, and I refuse to be saddled with them.

I am not this horse who is just like, "Oh yes, please saddle me with this burden of finding dark oak."

[honourablejester]

Okay. Forgive the pedantry a little here, but I’ve seen this mistake in a couple of different places over the last couple days, so it’s on my mind.

‘Palpable’ means ‘feelable’ or ‘touchable’, from the Latin word ‘palpare’, to touch gently. It’s the same root as ‘palpitate’. It’s used in a metaphorical sense for when something that should be invisible or intangible has become so real it feels like it could be touched. This is what the phrase ‘a palpable threat’ means. A threat so present that it feels physical, even if no one’s actually hit anyone yet. This can be used for other emotions as well. ‘A palpable disdain’ is a contempt so obvious that the recipient can all but feel it against their skin. The metaphor here is of something intangible, like an emotion, that is nonetheless so strong that it feels like you could touch it. Kinda the same idea as ‘tension so thick you could cut it with a knife’.

‘Palatable’ means ‘good tasting’ or ‘in good taste’, from ‘palate’, which is literally the roof of your mouth and figuratively your sense of taste. Someone or something trying to make itself palatable means that they’re trying to make themselves seem acceptable, agreeable, in good taste.

You wouldn’t really say someone was trying to make themselves palpable, unless they were a ghost trying to make themselves tangible enough to touch things (and even then, tangible itself would be the more usual word). You could say someone’s presence was palpable? If you’re saying someone is trying to make themselves palpable, you’re saying they’re trying to make themselves felt.

And by the same token, you likely wouldn’t say someone was making a palatable threat. It is possible, if someone was making an effort to disguise the threat as something ‘in good taste’, but given the nature of threats and how they are almost never considered ‘acceptable’ or ‘in good taste’, you’d probably go ‘an almost-palatable threat’ there.

Basically, for threats? The word you’re looking for is probably ‘palpable’. And if you’re talking about someone trying to make themselves seem acceptable, you want ‘palatable’.

Again, pardon the pedantry. Carry on.

[kuiperblog]

The tweet being quoted is of course obviously wrong: the fact that the current market price of gold is ~$3,000 per ounce is contingent on gold maintaining its current rarity, and the market price of gold would be considerably lower in a world where gold was more abundant.

But the person who has showed up to dunk on this tweet is wrong in a more subtle (and more annoying) way: gold being abundant would not make it "worthless."

We intuitively understand that many types of mineral are useful for things. For example, iron useful as a construction material (especially if you make steel out of it). And titanium offers a similar strength at less weight, making it useful if you're trying to build spaceships.

If the earth suddenly gained a huge amount of iron, this would not cause iron to become "worthless." Ditto for titanium.

If we had a magic machine that could instantly create more lithium and cobalt, that would not be a "worthless" invention: we would use the machine to create minerals that we could use to make batteries; we could make more of the grid solar, energy would be more abundant, and that would have the effect of making us all richer (in tangible ways, like cutting the price of your energy bill, and in other less-immediately-obvious but still tangible ways).

Adding more resources to the world would make the world richer, not poorer, because we could do things with them! This is true of iron, titanium, and cobalt. It is also true of gold.

Gold is useful! It has a bunch of unique properties that allow you to build useful things out of it!

If you've ever installed a CPU, you're probably familiar with this sight:

Intel did not put a gold top-coat on your CPU pins because they were expecting you to display them to ostentatiously broadcast your wealth. It used gold because that's the best material for the job!

Gold has low electrical resistance, and it doesn't tarnish, which means that properties like resistance won't change over the lifespan of the chip. Palladium-nickel is too porous and prone to cracking; silver tarnishes too easily, platinum is harder to solder.

The Intel chip in your PC has gold because in a counterfactual world where they instead had to use a different material, your CPU would be worse at doing the the things that it's supposed to do.

In fact, there are a lot of applications where gold is just straight-up better than copper, aluminum, tin, and nickel, but we end up using those (worse) materials anyway just because gold is too expensive. If price were no object, you'd really rather wire your house with gold than copper, but we use copper because it's less than 1% the cost. If gold were more abundant, we wouldn't have to settle for second-best!

But there is another way in which the annoying tweet is wrong that people would remain poor even if we accept the false premise that "gold would be worthless": those suffering under the resource curse of gold could be considerably better off!

A world where gold is valuable is a world where dictators who control a limited supply of gold have a major source of wealth that is mostly decoupled from human capital. A country whose main export is gold has considerably less incentive to do things like "build schools" and "ensure that children aren't malnourished" than they would in a world where their main export was microchips or movies or software, because in order to create chips/movies/apps, you need to have a bunch of skilled labor and you can only get that skilled labor by building schools and ensuring that your people's cognitive capacity isn't being diminished by childhood malnourishment. (In case it's not obvious, this point generalizes to many things beyond "just" building schools and getting nutrients into children.)

So, if "gold became worthless," it's quite conceivable that people could be better off: eliminating that specific source of wealth would mostly have the effect of reducing a particular kind of inequality that tends to make a tiny number of people rich at the expense of everyone else.

(That is, of course, accepting the premise that gold would become "worthless," which it wouldn't, because we can do useful things with gold: it can't be worthless because it literally has worth even absent any shared notion of it being a useful "store of value." Gold is like titanium; it's not like a piece of paper with Benjamin Franklin whose usefulness is entirely contingent on constructed factors. If humanity went extinct, aliens would struggle to find useful things to do with $100 bills, but they'd find plenty of useful things to do with all of the gold that they found on earth. This was even the premise of an extremely silly sci-fi movie starring Harrison Ford, Cowboys and Aliens.)

The only time when I really feel comfortable dunking is when it is a "counter-dunk," so I will float the possibility that perhaps this tweeter would benefit from taking his own advice to "take an economics class."

[spid3rs0up]

Fun taxonomy trick

Since all life is related, you can say stupid shit like: "Oh yeah harvestmen, they're not actually spiders. common misconception. They're actually related to elephants."

and not be wrong. Go ahead, tell people sloths are related to moss. Who cares if their last common ancestor predates multi-celular life or whatever. Have fun with it. No number of degrees of separation can un-relate things or remove them from a clade. If anyone says two animals aren't related because they're in a different order, please correct them. Dolphins are related to sharks actually. Cry about it.