Given how "western occult science" is just magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN. Additionally, "western occult science" typically glosses over its 1920-1940s roots and branches.
Wondering why...
> magical thinking and pseudo babble, it hardly fits on HN
Don't ask Newton about the pseudo babble stuff. Nor the string "theorists". In fact, don't ask any of the "theoretical" physicists (an oxymoron by definition, which seems to be lost on almost all of them) about "magical thinking and pseudo babble".
Those are conjectures. Even the most diehard proponents are seeking verifiable proofs, not simply stating, "Well, like, that's just your opinion, man...".
Scientific hypotheses and religious/metaphysical articles of faith are orthogonal ideas.
Well, Anthroposphy was explicitly targeted by the Nazis.. Rudolf Steiner's first Goetheanum was literally burnt down by them and he had to flee to Switzerland.
The 'roots' and branches of 1920s - 1940s Western occultism is largely a Theosophical society thing.
This is the most tone deaf answer I've read in quite a while. Learning to code, and everything you listed isn't available or possible by most people in a timely manner.
The question was what can be done now, by novice people. Not by people who must first acquire years of tech knowledge.
It's not reinforcing your point to say that. Not everyone can do it. And it shouldn't preclude them from being safe.
This is equivalent to pointing at some ivory tower of safety and say: "git gud."
I do recall Trump not wanting to let go of that power, in it? It wasn't out of his own magnanimity that he stepped down. Checks and balances still worked, appallingly sure, but they still worked.
He was unprepared last time, and made the strategic mistake of having a few non-sycophants around in positions of power who could tell him that he had to surrender.
Please read the Jack Smith final report. He broke laws to stay in power, he did not give up any power willingly. And if the Supreme Court hadn't delayed things so much, he would have gone to trial and been found guilty before he could be reelected.
Just because he's an absolute dumbass who had no idea how to effectively overturn the election doesn't mean he didn't try and doesn't mean the attempt wasn't violent.
This goes far beyond "nuclear proliferation." It's about medical, pathogen research. The Wuhan lab for coronavirus was also backed by the US to study such viruses.
Proliferation is also about vaccination and HIV prevention, etc. USAID et al. are among the most important programs in development and prevention worldwide. This is a tragedy chosen by a majority of Americans because what goes around comes around. COVID showed again that pandemics don't stop at borders.
One big issue is that industry jobs in some areas increasingly expect academic excellence in the shape of "publishing in top 3 conferences" for example.
Because that's the number conferences that are generally considered to be better than the rest. Just like the "top 4" computer science schools in the US are unambiguously Stanford, UC Berkeley, MIT, and Carnegie Mellon. You can ask, why not 5? Because then you start getting into questions about whether you want to include UCLA or UIUC or Caltech and it's significantly more complicated.
Of course, but there are still four schools which are clearly the "top" ones. The same is true for academic conferences, or big tech, or intelligence agencies.
Top is just marketing. In Big Tech it's market cap or something, but it's not proof of anything and may be just marketing. Google is a search advertising monopoly pretending to be a "tech" company (per Thiel), but is a "top" company to work for. Ok.
And intelligence agencies are government mandated, not marketing made. Or at least I haven't heard any marketing from the NSA saying how selective they are in admissions (as if that means anything).
Most quantitative recruitment criteria are arbitrary to some degree. Unless you rigorously examine every single applicant, you need some heuristics for initial filtering.
The main issue with this approach is that it doesn't help people who struggle financially or come from disfavorable backgrounds -- whom federal student loans aimed to help.
Some sets of circumstances don't favor score maximization on such tests, whereas being in a high income family favors prior access to education that help get those scores for instance. Ergo you'd not solve a better access to education that way.
Similarly, means testing for those slots also has negatives incentives. It's a hard issue to solve.
Test scores are one of the primary vehicles for social mobility in modern America. There are other reasons for correlations between affluence and test scores beyond just environmental unfairness.
Federal student loans themselves have always expressed the tension in parent poster's dichotomy.
On the one hand, we could fund college for only those who need the help.
On the other hand, that would be a political shitstorm because people with means wouldn't receive as much (or potentially even any) benefit.
So the system now has lots of loopholes and sliding scales, so that everyone gets some benefit and supports it. Replace states with families, and it's the NASA approach to political support.
Personally, I think the removal of objective testing is dumb. It may be income/background correlated, but it is objective.
You can address the disparities by providing benefit to those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
More critically, you want a system that doesn't allocate money to 'dumb/lazy but also from an advantaged background'.
