The media always hypes things more than their actual size. Most likely there won’t be a regional war, it is too expensive for everyone to go into war. And one side is stronger than the other. But if it does happen, here is how I think it might look like: Israel(most likely) or Iran/Hezbollah declare war on each other. They advance their troops to the border for invasion. International pressure rises to prevent a war. If pressure fails, aggression starts heavily. You can expect Israel to attack Iran where it hurts(it’s milita leaders or Tehran directly) and expect Iran to do the same(attacking Israeli citizens with missiles). Every country in the world has to pick a side to support. West would support Israel and supply it with ammo. Iran might get support from North Korea, possibly Russia and China(although they are not strong allies of Iran). I expect Arab countries to not join the war, or join lightly(sending observation force, or some weapons through unofficial means). Expect Iran’s militia’s in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to provide varying degress of help to Iran. Most effective would be Hezbollah which is it’s strongest and it’s closest to Israel. Second would be Syria, it could become a front on the Golan heights, Iranian milita has strong presence there. Iraq/Yemen won’t provide much, likely only used for enforcement(securing Red Sea, land route from Iran to Lebanon) Expect destruction of Lebanon’s villages, refugess from the Middle East fleeing the war and the economic situation.
Take Simon with a grain of salt, but this Warographics on What a war might look like along side the context of RealLifeLore background on US, Iran relations might give some further understanding if you are after some short intros.
Actual desktops are going the way of the dodo for the mass market and Linux netbooks are quite popular. With Microsoft’s current strategy of making a product that is worse and worse for low powered devices, I honestly think it’ll happen sooner, except for businesses.
@whydudothatdrcrane "gender" is a mental disorder, you're right it's not physical at all, yet doctors keep cutting off breasts and penises to apparently "affirm" a mental disorder has a physical appearance to associate with it.
@whydudothatdrcrane believing the earth is flat is right up there with believing a eunuch is a woman, some funny shit to watch on the internet and stay away from IRL.
Mom? Dad? cries stop fighting! I’m sorry! Don’t get divorced! It’s all my fault! I shouldn’t have asked dad for some dunkaroos when he was having a meeting in the bedroom with his work friend!
Men: spend thousands of years equating degree masculinity with the presence and composition of testicles. Doing art about testicles. Writing songs about testicles. Having a holy divine ritual where you make sure the Pope has testicles before you swear him in.
This guy: “Disregard all of that! Masculinity is a different thing!”
A. Care to provide any evidence for your “gender is a mental disorder” point? Even a little?
B. No one actually cuts a penis off, just FYI
C. Its not uncommom for Cis teenage girls get breast reduction surgery, or even implants. Do you have issue with this? Or do you only have an issue when it’s trans men getting a mastectomy?
D. Why you gotta be weird dude? I guarantee you’ve interacted with at least a handful of trans people in your life and were genuinely clueless about it. (I’m pre-empting the “we can always tell”)
Edit: didnt notice he’s banned. Leaving it anyway.
I don’t use Facebook so I don’t post in this community much, but I do get some pretty insane WhatsApp forwards like this one. Let me know if y’all want to see more of these.
The syntax is @[email protected]. It’s more complicated because fediverse. But like Facebook, my client automatically populates it for me (as soon as I type @andr it popped up as an option)
There’s still more than one kind of epistemology that’s compatible with this. You haven’t answered questions about whether you can know things by just reasoning without any empirical input, or can know things about concepts unrelated to the physical world.
You’ve pinned down that a “perfect rational agent” is relevant in your system, and that the laws of science are real, meaningful, knowable and not infinite. That’s it.
…or can know things about concepts unrelated to the physical world.
I do not fully grasp this context or dimensionality of scope. I am not implying any form of mentalism, but I doubt that was the intended meaning here.
You’ve helped me see more clearly though. I’m postulating that it is possible to statistically ground inference against infinite probability once enough background information is established and unknown scopes constrained. The data collection in-situ grounds the interlocutor against the background. Truth is known when the matter in question has a sufficient statistical constraint against this background.
I guess I’m saying intuitive reasoning has a grounding scope flaw in the present, but this flaw is solvable because the observable universe is finite and a statistical measure against it is a valid truth and condition for conscious existence within once sufficient information is known and encompassed with understanding. Does this perspective have a name?
I do not fully grasp this context or dimensionality of scope.
Most of the examples I’m thinking of are math things. A really basic example might be an infinite collection of objects, if the universe is finite. You can talk about it, and even prove things about it mathematically, but it has no physical equivalent. If I can prove that one infinity is bigger than another (which has been done) in a finite universe, is that then a form of knowledge? Some schools, like pragmatism, would actually say no.
You’ve helped me see more clearly though. I’m postulating that it is possible to statistically ground inference against infinite probability once enough background information is established and unknown scopes constrained. The data collection in-situ grounds the interlocutor against the background. Truth is known when the matter in question has a sufficient statistical constraint against this background.
I guess I’m saying intuitive reasoning has a grounding scope flaw in the present, but this flaw is solvable because the observable universe is finite and a statistical measure against it is a valid truth and condition for conscious existence within once sufficient information is known and encompassed with understanding. Does this perspective have a name?
Empiricism, plus the belief that the observable universe is tractable (which is a thing most scientists believe but nobody has proven). At least, believing you can’t do intuitive reasoning without knowing the universe is textbook empiricism.
kbin.life
Hot