Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing.
Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right?
Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME?
Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted.
That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground.
It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?
Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location?
And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
Those African regimes don't spend billions a year to promote and fund terrorism in other countries. Remember kids, you can kill millions of your own people (Stalin, Mao, etc) and nobody will care. Heck, some will even celebrate you. But don't mess with people in another country, otherwise outsiders will get involved. Iran is the main source of violence and terrorism in the most violent part of the world. Maybe, just maybe your fake moralizing isn't helping.
Iran has committed or contributed to virtually zero terrorism in America. The American people have no legitimate beef with Iran, America is just acting as Israel's rabid attack dog.
there is quite a beef going on between America and Iran if you haven't noticed, such as taking an entire embassy as hostages or killing a whole lot of US troops in Iraq and Lebanon among other things
Iran occasionally attacks Americans in the region or abroad generally, but they don't attack Americans in America despite all of their "death to America" rhetoric (which they are more than entitled to.) If you add up who's fucking with who and who's being fucked with, the imbalance between America and Iran is enormous.
I think they just enjoy memorizing things. Roughly the equivalent of meeting someone who runs 10 miles a day. They enjoy it and it has some benefit to their life as well, even though they are probably far past the point of diminishing returns.
More precisely, enjoys memorizing things but isn't good at it. Professonal quizzers can absorb huge amounts of information but typically don't use flashcards. OP is grinding thousands of cards a day to get to the same level - worthy of respect!
> Professonal quizzers can absorb huge amounts of information but typically don't use flashcards.
Professional quizzers almost all use flashcards. Jeopardy! people definitely do. The range of questions that you can ask in a general knowledge quiz are surprisingly limited. You're not going beyond a surface-level overview on anything. Do a ton of general knowledge flashcards for a year and you'll annihilate people at pub quizzes.
I suppose you could just read encyclopedias over and over again, and books of lists.
Ken Jennings doesn't! I am speculating though so I'll defer to your knowledge here. I was trying to say, for some people it comes naturally. I doubt the majority of quizzers are doing 300k reviews a year.
Reminds me of that guy who "mastered the NYT Crossword" by flashcarding questions/clues. I also learned to do the Saturday consistently - just by doing the crossword every day for a while. You don't always need flashcards.
Can you elaborate on this? I watch an unhealthy amount of University Challenge and I assumed that the vast majority of contestants would use flash cards as a trivia retention tool. Most people I've met who need to rely on large amounts of accurate but relatively dispersed knowledge (law students, say, or specific historical professions) use flash cards in one way or another. It surprises me greatly that 'professional quizzers' wouldn't. Perhaps _some_ of them wouldn't - I'm sure as with anything there are some who are preternaturally excellent.
Well, it stands to reason that people who don't need to do flashcards have a competitive advantage and are more likely to become professional quizzers. They might use flashcards in addition, but I get the sense most of them just absorb trivia like a sponge.
I highly doubt professional or even amateur quizzers wouldn't use flashcards. Especially armed with a SRS algo, it would be the most efficient way to learn to quickly recall the type of info needed for quiz bowls
Roger Craig famously used Anki and was one of the top jeopardy players for a while, and I believe he got some push back from the likes of Jennings and others who thought flash cards were cheap and the only right way to do trivia is "naturally", by just reading a bunch of random shit all the time.
I read the author's attempt to explain why memorization is important, and found myself unconvinced. Of all the things we consider to be "intelligence", memorization of facts seems like one of the least valuable in the Internet-era. That said, I am open to hear some counter-arguments (pro-memorization).
Of course, if you simply enjoy the process of memorizing facts, then no explanation is needed - it is entertainment for you, and comes with a benefit, like enjoying exercising. Otherwise, it does not seem like a remotely optimally productive way to achieve mastery in any field I am aware of, other than being a student who will be tested on fact memorization.
Memorization focuses on the set of things you want to recall, but don't use often enough to naturally remember.
This is most peritent for language learning because you need to 'bootstrap' a large set of words and grammar, and you can't use all of them often enough to put them in long-term memory (at first).
Aside from foreign languages, I also use flashcards for English - more difficult words that show up rarely enough that I can't remember their definitions - and country flags.
For general learning too, if you need to keep looking something up over and over but can't seem to remember it, flashcards will bootstrap that into your brain and make future learning smoother. Obviously Internet/AI can help - but LLMs can't explain 100% of a topic in their reply, they always assume some level of abstraction, and the higher-level it is the faster you can absorb a topic.
I think the key part here is the bootstrapping phase. You may not use a specific English word every week, but maybe you use it every 2-3 months. SRS is great for getting information to these different thresholds!
See my other comments here for some of my motivations, but also:
Even in the Internet age, getting the latency from "fast" to "effectively zero" has a lot of value for staying in flow, synethesizing information, etc. Your memory is the ultra-low-latency fact retrieval system you always have. No, you definitely don't want to use it for everything, but it definitely does complement modern tools in important ways.
Yep. There are plenty of activities, skills, hobbies, whatever, where being able to remember something in the moment is very helpful. Sometimes it’s an edge case, maybe it’s a safety thing. You just want to remember whatever it is.
Or, hell, just for conversations, I’d love to better remember insightful things I read about and then promptly forgot.
The UK is extremely litigious in regards to libel. Her lying would be an act of public libel against the crown prosecutor. She went on TV to talk about it. It's been well covered in everything from the IB Times to The Sun to the Daily Mail (as linked above), as well as fully televised on Piers Morgan. Naturally the team you obviously root for can just refuse to cover any prosecutions which are embarrassing for them and you can simply smugly say "well it's not in any source I trust so it didn't happen."
At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.
At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.
The UK is extremely litigious in regards to libel. Her lying would be an act of public libel against the crown prosecutor. She went on TV to talk about it. It's been well covered in everything from the IB Times to The Sun to the Daily Mail (as linked above), as well as fully televised on Piers Morgan. Naturally the team you obviously root for can just refuse to cover any prosecutions which are embarrassing for them and you can simply smugly say "well it's not in any source I personally recognize as valid so it didn't happen."
You can explain it away all you want. Those sources are garbage. They pay for stories, don't confirm sources, or do anything else required of journalism. I get you may be GenZ and have been fed garbage soup your whole life about how "all news bad", but fyi there are still some publications with journalistic standards. You might as well add the National Enquirer from the US. Your sources are such sensationalist rags that they were selling attention long before the internet.
It's not ad-hominem it's ad-practices. For all you know every single one of those articles is based on the same half-baked rumor.
Firstly, IB Times is one of the biggest news sources in existence. They own Newsweek. They do not pay for stories, and they do confirm sources, as they are an institutional capitalized outlet operating out of the UK (the friendliest jurisdiction for libel litigation in the world) that does not want to be sued out of existence. They are not a politicized outlet and generally swing left-wing, in contrast to some of the other sources.
All the sources you claim have standards repeated corporate-state lies during COVID (I know this because they all did). They have zero integrity, they are just mouthpieces for a government that would cover up its lies and never have accountability. I am not GenZ and your assertion that this is a generational issue is another form of ad hominem attack, showing your own personal willingness to dismiss speakers on the basis of perceived identity, as well as fraudulently attribute their speech to groups that you perceive as intellectually lesser. Regardless, it is her word and the case records against the UK government. The latter has been caught lying countless times and is immune from prosecution for doing so, while she and the publications in question can be held accountable for any false claims. Ergo, they have skin in the game, they are taking the risk, and the government is not, and you should assume that she is telling the truth as the incentives are aligned with her to do so.
No bigotry at all. It has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Just that the guy and his followers are notably biased, and they are open about it. Sorry you misunderstood as bigotry my pointing out the clear bias of the owners and your incorrect attribution of ownership. Look at the content section of your original link about IBT. The rag is clearly not run on sound journalistic practices.
Nope. It's about him being vocally biased and claiming his purpose in media is specific to an agenda. That agenda is specifically not journalism. So yeah... Really doesn't have anything to do with the motives you are falsely attributing to me. Might want to read your own sources before you start flinging accusations.
You can try to twist my words however you want, but it seems your usual targets are much more easily manipulated. Sorry buddy.
That is false. There are still decent outlets dedicated to journalism. Yeah, besos and buddies are fkn once reputable journalistic sources. But there are still independent outlets focused on journalistic integrity.
Saying 'it saves life' might sound less dramatic. Using a corporate windows machine certianly feels like self harming, and if I was at a low ebb, it could potentially be fatal.
It probably doesn't save lives, except maybe in some extreme scenarios. But it does save life. Time, the most precious resource, even more precious than money.
It also didn't always work. At no point did the MacBook boot nearly as instantly as an iPad. That said, Jobs' obsession with UX was a powerful driving force and your point stands.
Probably both. Apple Silicon macbooks seem to never actually sleep, they just switch to the energy efficient cores, similar to how iPhones / iPads never truly sleep either. You can tell by leaving e.g. a while loop in zsh running and printing the date + sleep, and when you reopen the lid you'll see quite a few iterations actually completed.
reply