What coronets do you think the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will wear at Charles' coronation? I assume Meghan will wear the bandeau tiara again?
They will wear the coronet of the child of the sovereign. It has alternating crosses and fleurs-de-lys so it's the same as the coronet of the heir without the arch. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about coronets that shows all of the different styles.
Here are the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke and Duchess of Kent wearing them for the coronation of King George VI in 1937.
The Duchess of Gloucester wore Queen Mary's Honeysuckle Tiara and the Duchess of Kent wore her Fringe Tiara. Your assumption is the same as mine, I think Queen Mary's Diamond Bandeau Tiara is probably the tiara the Duchess of Sussex will wear.
Popular opinion meme: what's your favorite thing about the Kardashians? :P (yes I know it's a little shit of a question but the format begs for a challenge--and also I wanna hijack the meme, which seems impolite if I don't submit an ask first!)
Okay so at a certain point as a teenager I made not knowing a single thing about the Kardashians like, a minor part of my identity. Very original I know.
So literally all I've got about them is 'obscenely rich, reality show, I think one of them married Kanye?"
Anyway I can't find it right now, but at one point Kim posted a picture of one of her horses on twitter, and one of the replies was "Great, not only does this horse have a better life than I do, it also has better hair."
MABO Typology of Reactions to a Science or Technology
Epistemic status: second-edition thought.
Consider X. X is a science, or an applied science, or a technology, or a Dawkinsian meme. It may be something you encounter every day, or something encountered rarely in a person's life, or something that was used once but has never been used again in history.
The world contains many people; people are different from each other. Different people have different reactions to X. Note that X does not necessarily have to exist in the physical world for people to have reactions to it; speculative fiction helps us to reason about many X that do not exist.
The MABO Typology describes how people react to X.
M stands for Malignant. The Malignants seek to develop X into a weapon which can be used against their enemies. Their interest in X is specifically because of its use as a weapon. They will seek ways to weaponize X, even if it is poorly suited for use as a weapon. The end justifies the means, and the means is the development of X.
M also stands for the Misled, who follow in the footsteps of the Malignants, but think they are using X for Good. Their efforts support the Malignants, though perhaps unintentionally. They may have been lied to by the Malignants, or they may simply be part of a system which hides the Malignant use of X from the Misled. A worker in a widget factory may not know what machinery the widgets are used in, for example.
A stands for Atrocious. The Atrocious seek to destroy their enemies, for whatever abstract or concrete definition of "destroy" you want to use. If presented with X to use against their enemies, the Atrocious will use X. But if X is not available, the Atrocious will attempt to destroy their enemies nonetheless. The Atrocious see X as a means, but X is not the only means for the Atrocious to commit atrocities.
B stands for Benevolent. The Benevolents seek to develop X in a non-weaponized manner. The Benevolent are not interested in the use of X as a weapon; indeed they may seek to prevent X from being weaponized. Their pursuit of X is to try to find something in X that can be used for Good.
O stands for Opposed. The Opposed do not want X to be developed in any fashion. The potential for the weaponization of X means that any development of X must be opposed. To allow the development of X opens the possibility of its use for Evil.
I originally formulated the MABO Typology in response to some discourse regarding an X which could be used as the basis for a social or cultural weapon. I think it is easily applicable to things which are physical weapons, latent poisons, active poisons, and other examples of dual-use technologies. This post is an attempt to separate the MABO Typology from any specific X, to state it in the generic tense. (By request, for @pomrania.)
Maxim 24: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun."
To find someone's place in the MABO Typology is to determine whether they can be trusted with sufficiently advanced technologies.
It is easy to determine who is Opposed to a technology X.
It may be somewhat easier to determine who is Atrocious, for they will use things other than X to attack their enemies.
Once you have determined the difference between the Benevolent and the Malignant, it might be possible to highlight that difference, and thereby lead the Misled to the Benevolent side. Sometimes the Misled are willingly Misled, through cults or money or other incentives. It may be very hard to lead the Misled away from the Malignant, and this leads some Opposed to classify the Misled as Malignants. For this reason, Misled and Malignant both start with M in the MABO Typology.
The problem that the MABO Typology is designed to highlight is the problem of distinguishing the Malignant from the Benevolent.
How do you tell whether someone's interest in X is for good or ill? Especially when you, yourself, may not be an expert on X? Or if you are even mostly-ignorant of X beyond knowledge that X exists?
Some thoughts on "how" after the break, but please reply with your own heuristics.
The best heuristic I've yet seen suggested was from @worriedaboutmyfern, who suggested "whether the people investigating seem to have taken precautions against atrocities, or not." She linked this to Scott's terminology: have the people interested in X noticed the skulls? What is their reaction to the skulls? By this may you know them.
A simpler heuristic, which I do not think is a valid heuristic, is to observe how the classified person behaves with respect to other things like X which can be used for evil. Are they a safe driver? Do they treat their family and friends well? Do they practice gun safety? Do they wash the cutting board and knife when switching foods? This is a simpler heuristic to deploy for people who are not initiates of X. I think it is a dangerous and invalid heuristic. It is very easy for cognitive dissonance or calculated malice or acting to allow someone to be a fine upstanding person in all aspects of their life save one.
A criticism of of the MABO Typology as I have described it above is that I'm using "good" and "evil" without defining those concepts. I'm clearly using them with regards to my own moral reference frame, yet I'm not including a description of that reference frame in the MABO Typology. An after-the-fact justification of this omission is that I wish readers to interact with the MABO Typologoy and the concepts it presents, rather than nitpick my own morality. Indeed, the reason why I'm making this genericized post was to separate the MABO Typology from the examples which I used to illustrate the ideas initially. More effort was given to discussing the examples than was given to discussing the MABO Typology. But the truth of it is that I couldn't think of a way to phrase this without reference to the concepts of Good and Evil.
Changing my expectations in response to (ugh!) evidence, is there anything more middlebrow? Nevertheless please adjust me IN HIGH DUDGEON to Biden 25-30, Bernie 25-30, Warren 10-15 Buttigieg 25-30 Yang 0-5 Klobuchar 0-5 Bloomberg 0-5 (I accept statistics concrit)
I think that is actually the fun part of a prediction market: forcing people to write down concrete predictions and then revise them in the light of new evidence, something we almost never do for the obvious reason that it so clearly demonstrates that our strongly held opinions are built on a bed of sand.
worriedaboutmyfern replied to your post “Oh my god new worst pokemon so worst so very worst”
Go onnnnn
Thank you, this is precisely the level of encouragement I require, which is barely any.
48 hours ago I innocently hatched luvdisc and since then I have not known peace.
How am I supposed to look at this at not see “an intimate personal lubricant for adventurous couples”? Please tell me how, because I have been trying to not see it ever since it hatched, with no success.
(Is this known among the Pokérati as “the buttsex fish?” Never mind, please don’t answer that.)
“Hair and makeup for my author photo session. If you're in SE Michigan...”
:
Wow! You look fantastic!
Thank you! I was SO happy. I had to find out what lipstick she used because I am in love with it. :) (It's Nyx Soft Matte Cream in Budapest.) The first time I've ever worn fake eyelashes. It will probably be the last because they made me bonkers. :D
Will the Princess Toshi receive a new tiara on her... eighteenth? Twentieth? birthday? Or is there one already set for her to inherit?
Princess Toshi (Aiko) will receive a tiara and accompanying parure for her 20th birthday in December 2021. It will probably be a new tiara because that’s what they usually do and as far as I know there is not one from the vault set aside for her. I would rather they give her an older tiara, in particular the one that belonged to her aunt Sayako Kuroka, the former Princess Nori. I love traditions so I naturally love the idea of it being passed from one only daughter of the Emperor to another.
