Theoretical question - would it be possible to get so gassed up that if you peed in the pool you’d make everyone else test positive?

Ahh, the US-Russia summit in Geneva in June 2021.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose countries hold 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, agreed at a June summit in Geneva to embark on an integrated bilateral ‘Strategic Stability Dialogue’ to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures.

Reuters - U.S. and Russia say they held ‘substantive’ arms control talks in Geneva

Simpler times.

GEC looks like a legit project, and I like how their news releases are multilingual. Thank you for sharing that.

I note that the US Foreign Malign Influence Center is also at work in this space, and authored the alert yesterday that I think is motivating this particular news item.

I think funding these governmental agencies, incentivizing inter-agency communication, and modernizing & centralizing the communication of their findings is something America needs badly, as well as the country I live in.

It’s a bit crazy that the only way to look at & share the FMIC alert is via a direct link to a pdf. In order to find it, you have to already know what you’re looking for. Give 20 millennials a job with a mandate to find a way to organize and disseminate this information, and things would be so much better. Right now, a person has to be a sleuth to put these pieces together, and that’s not right.

Anyway, I’m not taking issue with what you posted, I’m just soapboxing. An effective response to the issue of foreign disinformation campaigns seems relatively straightforward to me. The only thing missing is the political will.

Well done. I just discovered the Media Bias Fact Check - so, thank you for that!

Keep doing what you’re doing. Assembling this information and making it easy to access is critically important.

We desperately need improved lines of communication between the state and the public regarding foreign disinformation. Like, a free newspaper that comes out every Monday with confirmed examples of foreign propaganda from the previous week. And official social media accounts that give up-to-date information. Surely it’s in the public interest to establish offices that rapidly assemble and distribute this kind of information. Finding out, ‘oh hey, that protest way back in 2022 was organized as part of a foreign interference campaign’, it’s just too late. This sort of information needs to be centralized, summarized, and rapidly disseminated.

It’s not enough for the state to simply say ‘be cautious’. Citizens need to know what to be cautious of. A general message that you shouldn’t trust anything you see on social media, that’s actually a benefit to the propagandists creating chaos in information spaces.

I just don’t see how the problem of disinformation gets addressed without intelligence agencies getting more modern and engaged in their approach to communication with the public.

This seems interesting. What’s the context here?

The moral of the stone soup story is that greedy people can and should be tricked into sharing. Everything old is new again.

As soon as I learned that Crank wasn’t cinéma vérité, I couldn’t take Jason Statham seriously ever again.

‘Killed her 14 month old dog for misbehaving’ is the clicky headline. But the subtext is, this person might be the republican running mate, and her story is presented as a parable about how killing is ‘a job that needs to be done’. It’s not crazy to put those pieces together and be anxious about the direction they point in.

I can see where you’re coming from. You’re right that her story is divisive. I think that’s the objective. It’s an engineered, populist, fascist move to present the story in the way that she does. No one in the public eye writes that kind of thing in a book and expects it to fly under the radar.

You’re also right that there’s a strong rural/urban ideological division. Best way to fix that I think is to talk to each other more, IRL, and try to honestly understand the perspectives of others, especially if they’re different from our own. My 2¢.

Wouldn’t checkering itself, even in the abstract, need to reference two discernible colours or shades, and so, wavelengths of light, and so, some extension along a z axis, and position in time? Is it possible even for an abstract checkered pattern to be defined in any less than 3 dimensions + time?

By a doctor, I very much want to be seen strictly as the biological organism that they have spent their life studying. The fact that there are very few doctors, and every person born on this earth will be a patient, means that a standard for unvarnished and concise language is morally praiseworthy in terms of its service of the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, there’s no good reason to get offended by the standard of language that the medical system operates in. There is an ocean of ill people who need help, and we’re not all special, in that sense.

A doctor who is led into a cognitive trap by seeing “diabetic” on a chart, is a bad doctor. I’m not sure small refinements of language are the remedy for that doctor’s deficits.

Mmm. I grew up in a different time too. Makes me ponder how the software circumstances of that time built in us a very different idea of what an iteration actually is, when it comes to writing. The fact that we couldn’t go back and atomically dissect the history of a piece. That a draft, and an edit, were something heavier. Maybe we’d have to think a bit more slowly and carefully before irreversibly casting a previous version into the ether.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a “gen z bad” post. Just reflecting on how things are different these days, and maybe it leads to a different kind of work.

I don’t begrudge anyone for believing that Covid-19 came from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. History shows that governments will make every effort to avoid standing up and telling their citizens a difficult truth. The lab leak theory is a fruit of rampant dishonesty in government. It’s directly the fault of the government that conspiracy theories like this exist, and it’s hypocritical for governments to bemoan those theories and the people who believe them.

I see what you mean, but I disagree that this is a misfire or miscalculation on the church’s part. This latest development reads as another jab at gay people, from a familiar angle. It’s a reaffirmation by the church that same sex couples who love each other aren’t seen as equals in a congregation.

Nobody should be raping children. Roman Catholic priests have done this, are doing this, and the Roman Catholic church has a long and ongoing history of covering it up. If the head of the Roman Catholic church fails to stop it, they’re blameworthy.

Something a pope could easily promise, but never will:

“We acknowledge our church has a history of sexual assault against children. Our church has sought to obscure this history of abuse. This was wrong, is wrong, and needs to be corrected. Sexual assault and abuses of power in the church are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. The church commits to fully funding local law enforcement investigations into all allegations of sexual assault by church staff, and disclosing any information the church may have that is relevant to those investigations. All victims must be heard. With victim consent, their stories will be recorded in a centralized, public, transparent record not administrated or controlled by the church in any way.”

Any church that isn’t afraid of raking in money in envelopes, but is afraid of making a commitment like the above, is a problem, yep, I agree. There’s no excuse. Saying the pope doesn’t have the power to do this is mealymouthed and also, incorrect.

I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not, I just want to say more generally - I don’t see how any Catholic, including the pope, has the right to opine on the finer points of official scriptures while priests are raping children and the church covers it up.

Church: since gay people should properly be seeking God’s mercy, we will now choose not to subject the gays to an exhaustive moral analysis, (that anyway if performed, would of course find them lacking). With that in mind, please feel free to approach your priest and request his blessing!

What a fucking insult.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make above.

In this case specifically, the outcome isn’t unclear. Let’s call the crab’s pain one unit of pain. Assume that unit can directly alleviate 20 units of pain across a handful of other beings. The utilitarian ought to prefer avoiding 19 units of net pain, than allowing 19 units of net pain to occur.

I read your initial post to be some sort of utilitarian moral argument, roughly, that less pain is better. Or something like that. That argument, in this case in particular, leads in the opposite direction than I think you want.

For the sake of argument, let’s take for granted your statement, that ‘suffering should be reduced as much as possible’.

If the discomfort of a single crab can prevent worse discomfort/suffering/death of many other beings, and results in reduced net pain, then the utilitarian line of reasoning seems to be that we might actually be morally obligated to take blood from crabs.

Disclosure - Before you had replied, I edited out the word ‘psychotic’ above, felt it was unfair.

Cheers, thanks for the thoughtful and reasonable reply. I agree with most of what you say. & it circles something I think about a lot but haven’t made much sense of (if there even is sense to make if it), which is, the role of bad feelings in moral decision making.

I think though, the compassion line should be drawn somewhere, sometimes, with moral reason as a guide. To dip into the quagmire of philosophical thought experiments, you know, what if certain humans produced this special clotting factor, and we had to bleed them to get it, and it came with a risk of their mortality? I think reasonable people could agree, that would be an entirely different question to grapple with. So, you know, I would say it does matter, it’s not a black & white thing, where either everything is worthy of compassion or nothing is. The circumstance can, should, dictate the moral approach. Eating meat, fighting in wars, there might be a right or wrong that’s worth determining there. And knowing that, the moral and the practical are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

And totally, I expect people to have differences when it comes to compassion. Suppose I’m just surprised at the outpouring of love for the gross horseshoe crab, in spite of its real usefulness for global human health. Or at least my understanding of it, which I admit, is not very deep.