General CE Chat

Henrik Larsson said:
Now I know not many people give a feck about Suriname, but damn this is a pretty historic moment. They've just convicted their sitting president Desi Bouterse to 20 years in jail for his role in the murders on 15 political opponents back in 1982. He's on a state visit in China right now, and the council used that fact to unexpectedly start with the sentencing today.
Click to expand...
Is he gonna claim asylum in China?
 
RedTiger said:
Is he gonna claim asylum in China?
Click to expand...

Nah, everything's possible but normally Bouterse is getting back in a couple of days and will appeal the verdict while continuing his presidency. Probably fire up his base, play it real nasty like always. But it's the beginning of the end for him, elections are up next year and the protests will be stronger than ever.

It's a nice unexpected moment of justice though, no one was expecting this in a trial that's been going on for almost exactly twelve years now and where Bouterse seemed untouchable. The special court that gave this verdict consisted of three female judges who went off the radar for almost a year before suddenly reopening today in a special protected courthouse, and everything seems to have been planned perfectly,
 
Henrik Larsson said:
Nah, everything's possible but normally Bouterse is getting back in a couple of days and will appeal the verdict while continuing his presidency. Probably fire up his base, play it real nasty like always. But it's the beginning of the end for him, elections are up next year and the protests will be stronger than ever.

It's a nice unexpected moment of justice though, no one was expecting this in a trial that's been going on for almost exactly twelve years now and where Bouterse seemed untouchable. The special court that gave this verdict consisted of three female judges who went off the radar for almost a year before suddenly reopening today in a special protected courthouse, and everything seems to have been planned perfectly,
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply brother. Are you of a Surinamese background?
 
Stealing some stuff from reddit:

I wish people still resigned over shit. In the UK it used to be understood that certain big parliament votes were "Confidence" votes, and if a government couldn't pass those ones it was expected that you'd resign.
But now you just white-knuckle it through any humiliation until you're forced out.

That’s why Fox News was created by Roger Ailes, to help the republicans get their narrative across to the public.
They felt humiliated by Nixon resigning and feel that if he’d stuck it out, with a friendly media, he’d have been fine.
It didn’t matter if the facts proved you wrong, just get your story out first and loudest. Then you can just deny, deflect and attack until the media attention dies down, people get bored and after a while the scandal goes away, except in the cases where it doesn’t.
The sad part is they didn't even need Fox News for that to happen. Look at Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Hell Bush's Iraq War has fallen down a fecking memory hole with a big assist from the non-Fox News media.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, are people's memories too rosy of politicans resigning when they were caught in scandal? Or is there an actual different between the times?

The only explanation I can think of would be Chomsky's description of Watergate - it is a scandal because one section of the ruling elite attacked another. Meanwhile, the surveillance, manipulation, and assassinations of Cointelpro or the deception and crimes revealed by the Pentagon Papers have been buried, just like the more recent Iran-Contra and Bush/Blair in Iraq. So we remember Nixon's resignation in Watergate but that was the exception.
 
Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers

Rather than regurgitate a stale description of these great thinkers’ ideas, which is available all over the Internet, we shall take an irreverent look at what makes these figures significant in the minds of leftists. A quick look at the “Dirty Thirty” will hopefully be on some counts informative and illuminating.

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/meet-the-lefts-founding-fathers/
1. Plato

[...]

30. Barack Obama?
 
Classic reading. The comments section did not disappoint. Did discover Any Rand was an atheist. How does that play out in conservative world? Never heard that talked about.
 
Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?

The doping of graphene with a plethora of elements has been reported as enhancing its electrocatalytic performance.(1,2) It has become almost a paradigm that the once fantastic graphene for electrocatalysis(3) is not so fantastic anymore and that we need to add something to it (i.e., a dopant) to make it great again.(4−10) Following this trend, graphene has been doped with many different elements, including N, S, P, B, etc.; in all cases, the electrocatalytic effect of the doped graphene was enhanced.(1,11−13) It apparently did not matter whether the doping atom/group was electron donating or electron withdrawing; the effect was always claimed to be electrocatalytic.
...
One may exaggerate only a little by saying that if we spit on graphene it becomes a better electrocatalyst. Having 84 reasonably stable elements (apart from noble gases and carbon), one can produce 84 articles on monoelemental doping of graphene; with two dopants we have 3486 possible combinations, with three dopants we can publish 95,284 combinations, and with four elements there are close to 2 × 106 combinations. One may start wondering whether there is any reason to do so, whether all the efforts in graphene doping for electrochemistry are justified. We decided to take this argument a step forward and to show experimentally that such efforts often do not bring significant insight. We demonstrate in the following text the meaninglessness of the never-ending co-doping of graphene. We decided to follow the hyperbole of ever multiplying dopants; however, instead of using expensive and toxic chemicals such as ammonia, fluorine, chlorine, boranes, etc., we took a page from the pre-Haber–Bosch era and sought natural materials for the fertilization of graphene and used guano as a dopant.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac...PNTHT1IUrNxdutVcs5InROQRet8pNFkPRVkbqVwbqxg0#
 


This is a dangerous misrepresentation/deliberate misreading from one of the most influential social scientists - a man cited by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. His entire premise is wrong - the polygenic scores are built from gene-IQ correlations that themselves are contaminated by environmental effects.
His solution to the inconsistencies in test scores, etc. is basically something like the society of GATTACA, where the genes themselves are a better indicator of your potential than your performance or even your test performance.

Edit - same explanation from an actual expert:


This paper very recently appeared (not reviewed yet) - https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2qfkt/
seems interesting
 
Last edited:
The resources put in to trying to find a way of measuring an imaginary G are some of the most wasted in all scientific endeavour.

Alchemy was a more worthwhile venture.
 
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/03/24/why-we-sleep-a-tale-of-institutional-failure/

(...)
I’m just sick of all this. I propose the following solution:

Instead of these researchers piling up a bunch of questionable evidence into a book which they can hype to high heaven, and then when the errors eventually get caught, they say that the data didn’t matter anyway, why not cut out the goddamn middleman and just start off your book with a statement such as, “None of the data in this book matters.” Whichever of our claims turn out to be fake, let us assure you that none of our claims will be affected by these errors. Just get it out in the open. Give these people official titles such as Tenured Professor of Scientific Claims That Don’t Have to Be Supported by Data.

OK. It was good to get this off my chest.
(...)
Click to expand...
:lol:

Now on to why this is important.

First, expertise matters in this world, and we’re learning this now when fighting the virus. But we need real expertise, not fake expertise. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Gresham, baby, Gresham. If we don’t contest the fake expertise, I’m seriously worried it will be crowding out the real stuff. As late as 28 Feb—less than a month ago!—we had a Harvard-credentialed expert telling us not to panic about coronavirus. OK, he wasn’t experts in epidemiology, he was an expert in . . . ummm, I dunno, expertise? Just an all-around public intellectual, a kind of Edmund Wilson of social science? I’m not sure. Anyway, I think we need to fight this kind of thing when we see it. I don’t mean that we all need to fight it, or that I need to spend most of my time fighting it, but I do mean that some of us have to spend some of our time fighting it, not letting empty claims of expertise slip by.

In some way, I feel that the Why We Sleep author and the University of California are worse than media entities such as David Brooks who fling around fake stats and don’t correct clear errors. Brooks is an opinion columnist. If you believe anything he writes, that’s on you. But the Why We Sleep author, he’s like Dr. Oz—he borrows authority from serious institutions of scholarship. This is bad.
Click to expand...
 
Rental car overflow at airport due to pandemic + moderate drought: thousands of cars destroyed or damaged. Minor loss in the grand scheme of things, but the scenes were remarkable.

 
This phenomenally mindblowingly stupid tweet (most schools are closed) is a good time to re-post this excellent article about Megan McArdle, a fairly incompetent and often evil opinion writer who has failed upwards from the Economist blogs to the Atlantic to Bloomberg to WaPo.



https://www.pastemagazine.com/polit...mcardle-fails-upwards-again-this-time-to-the/
Highlights
When Playboy tied the Kochs to the Tea Party, McArdle attacked the authors of the piece, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. In her piece, McArdle wrote:

“I don’t see any evidence offered that Koch money funds FreedomWorks, or any astroturfing organization … from what I know of [the Kochs], astroturfing doesn’t really seem like their style.”

Which is strange, given her long history with their organization. According to a post in Naked Capitalism, McArdle was trained for “journalism” by Charles Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies. The post goes on to state that McArdle paid them back by returning in 2011 as “a guest lecturer and instructor at the Institute for Humane Studies’ “Journalism & the Free Society” summer internship program,” with a program titled “Is an ‘objective’ press possible — or even desirable?”
...
Here is McArdle, in her role as “econoblogger,” telling the public the upcoming Iraq War won't cost so much:

"Anyone who's sat through a budget meeting knows that almost everyone overestimates their successess, underestimates their costs; it's easier to go back for money later, when you can wave a nice hunk of sunk costs around, than say up front that you think whatever it is you're proposing will be expensive as hell. But trillions? US GDP is roughly $10 trillion. Alterman is saying that over the long run, this war is going to cost us at least 20% of GDP. That's nuts, and it's not the first time I've seen those sorts of numbers around. ... But making up ridiculous numbers in order to support your predisposition isn't helpful — and when the war doesn't cost us $2t, people are going to remember that the next time you talk about the costs of a program you don't like."

According to Reuters, the Iraq War cost the U.S. at least $2.3 trillion.

In 2007, McArdle made this judgment of the housing market:

"I recently overheard someone bashing Alan Greenspan for not doing something about the subprime mortgage market. That something seemed a little fuzzy, but seemed to involve stopping banks from offering those dreadful, dreadful loans. ... This seems to be a fairly common sentiment, so I think it's worth pointing out that the latest data we have shows that the overwhelming majority of subprime loans are still in good standing. Subprime securities are taking a bath because defaults are higher than were expected, not because everyone who got one is in trouble. The 85% of homeowners with subprime loans who are currently making their payments might not agree that Alan Greenspan should have, in his ineffable wisdom, prevented them from getting loans. Nor, so far, is there much evidence that the subprime problems are causing much fuss in the broader financial markets. ... There is no perfect regulatory state that will allow us all to live in a serene economic paradise, and the sooner we stop looking for one, the more effective our regulatory state will actually be."

After she was called out, she added this update:

"In calmer consideration, that was too flip. But the financial holocaust that was widely feared has not come to pass, and is looking less likely to occur with each passing day."
...
After the Iraq War had wounded, killed, and crippled somewhere between half a million to a million actual human beings, and invented ISIS, what did McArdle have to say about the invasion? Did she confess her own part in the tragedy she encouraged? Did she show humility? The worst thing to do, after all, would have been to write a self-satisfied, smug, nonchalant reply titled “I Wuz Wrong.” And that's exactly what she did. An adult human being, allegedly possessing the power of reason and human feeling, wrote this:

I erroneously believed that I could interpret the actions of Saddam Hussein. He seemed to be acting like I'd act if I had WMD. Whoops! I wasn't an Iraqi dictator, which left huge gaps in my mental model of Hussein.

Will Menaker said reading this article meant witnessing a “glib shithead rationalize her own deep moral failure.”
...
How seriously does McArdle take the plight of the poor? She compared waiting in line for an iPhone to being a refugee:

"Early this morning, the Apple folks appeared with water for the needy liners. I imagine this is what it feels like to be a refugee—you sleep outside, and then smiling people in uniform hand you supplies whether you ask for them or not."
Click to expand...

There's more in the article, including her encouraging people to beat up anti-war protestors, saying that Goldman did nothing wrong in 2008, and training primary school children to crowd-rush school shooters.

The only consequence for being wrong and reprehensible repeatedly when your job supposedly demands you be correct and reprehensible is to get promoted, since you got the important part right.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
@sammsky1 What does this have to do with the election exactly, and why bother giving them an extra voice regardless?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the political or cultural significance of the flag in relation to the question, hence why I asked question.

And I imagine both parties are making a political point which will influences opinions in upcoming election, hence why in that thread.
 
I've been following the tragic story of the 4 police officers in Melbourne, Australia who were killed when they were hit by an out-of-control lorry. They were standing in the emergency lane with a man who'd been speeding in his Porsche, who had tested positive for drugs. He fled the scene of the accident (he didn't get hit himself because he'd walked off to pee), but before he ran off he took graphic pics of the scene which he posted on social media.

This today in The Guardian:
An accused drug-driver filmed and abused one of the four police officers killed in a Melbourne freeway crash as she lay dying, a court has heard.

Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor could be heard calling for help before Richard Pusey began filming the crash, Melbourne magistrate’s court was told on Friday.

Pusey allegedly walked up to her and said: “There you go. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

“All I wanted was to go home and have my sushi and now you’ve f*cked my f*cking car,” Pusey allegedly said.

Pusey, 41, was pulled over for allegedly speeding at 140km/h. Police said he tested positive to ice and cannabis on the Eastern Freeway on Wednesday.

He was allegedly urinating on the side of the freeway when a truck driver smashed into four officers impounding his Porsche 911.

The officer and three of her colleagues, Senior Constable Kevin King and Constables Glen Humphris and Josh Prestney, died at the scene.

Pusey allegedly fled, before asking a witness for a ride to his home suburb of Fitzroy. He was arrested the next day.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...hat-killed-four-police-officers-to-face-court

I find it very hard to imagine how a human being could do that to another person. It's really shocking.
 
Moved here because of off-topic.
Foxbatt said:
Ok I get what you meant. I didn't mean lynching people. I think that's what happens in India. Normally people individually don't go to shoot people in India just because they are Muslims. There are incidents where politicians raise the temperature. In the US it's a different issue. African Americans get shot by the police and vigilantes always. In India normally governments don't let them get away with it. Yes now under Modi it's different but again he was involved in it at state level too though he was cleared by the SC.
Click to expand...
To me, a sweeping worldwide comparison like you did only makes sense when you loosen the criteria a good deal. Local circumstances are never the same, that's for sure. So under these more general premises I was thinking of:
  • people getting mistreated or killed out of racist/ethnic/religious motives
  • armed rackets "policing" the streets, feeling a sense of impunity over attacking specific parts of the population
  • a decent to surefire chance of state authorities looking the other way, or being perpetrators themselves
In some combination or another, and subject to local specifics.

I thought the idea - how I understood you - that things like this might be unique to the US, or the worst there throughout the world, was pretty outlandish. Not because of any illusions about the scale of the problem there, but because so much brutality against so many people in so many places is commonly overlooked, as it's out of the Western-centric public's focus. And too often I see critics of "the West" resort to not looking too closely for it, to maintain political battle lines. (More or less the mirror image of what Western identitarians do.) I severely dislike that, hence my reaction.

I get now that you mostly thought of it in US-specific terms, although - as above - I think that makes the comparison a bit redundant. Of course local circumstances and conflict lines differ, and some in the US are quite exceptional. And of course a racist neighborhood watch is different from a pogrom mob, or a criminal gang, or a rogue police force, or a clandestine terrorist cell. Which is why any comparison automatically shifts the focus towards larger underlying patterns, imo.
 


An impressive fire in Aubervillier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.