CharonY

I have not seen that episode, but was it about blindsight? I.e., damage in the primary visual cortex that removed the ability to consciously perceive things, but unconsciously processed them (e.g. in form of avoiding objects or reflexively react to movement)? There have also been variations thereof, where they for example cannot perceive color, but notice differences in wavelengths. I remember having read about that a long time ago during undergrad and was immensively fascinated by those studies. It was presented IIRC as a way how the brain does parallel processing of cues at various levels rather than in neat distinct areas. Though I am not sure if additional studies have changed that view since then.

I have some dread for that. Even in the best case scenario, it won't wash everything away. There will be a higher chance of some corrections, but the fissures are so larger, I don't see any mending happening. OTOH, things could go sideways. And what does that tell you then? Or what syndromes are. Though to be fair, I think it is something else. Those that are MAGA and are willing to suffer, seem to be able to endure that, as long as someone else they don't like suffers more. At this point, I have very hard time trying to see them as victims.

Also, I think newer HDD have implemented vibration detection and related safet features, which might have been absent in older systems.

Doesn't help that FBI is actively purging competence from its ranks.

Now I wonder whether my laptop kept crashing while writing my thesis because I was accidentally cursing at the right frequency...

I am looking forward to discovery. This is the point where you should ask yourself: why do you know that? An it really boils down to two things. In this part here: You basically say that media are untrustworthy. So you eliminate those as sources of information and supplant it with trust in Trump. I.e. you exchange trust in an information ecosystem (i.e. media) with trust into a person who demonstrably throughout his career has lied to further his personal goals. This is certainly a choice. A choice that abolishes accountability to those in power, a choice that selectively ignores information, a choice that weakens democratic systems (which rely on accountability). It is certainly not a choice that I would make. But perhaps I am just not understanding things properly and perhaps we can explore this issue a bit more systematically. Generally speaking there are at least three key elements of trust. The first is goodwill or fairness. This is is rooted in aspects of transparency that shows that the party is acting with benevolence and following procedural justice. In short, it should signal that processes are open and oriented to the benefit of people, rather than, for example, personal benefit. Media falls flat in some aspects, as they are a business. On the other hand, legacy media still has some transparency in editorial decisions, where they at least have to signal journalistic integrity. Some have failed in the aspect, to a large part due to failures of their owners (say, Bezos) so there are certainly deductions to be made. But there are also other information sources, such as academic ones. Here, transparency is mostly gained through processes like peer-review, academic exchange and providing specific sources for each and any claim. How does Trump's presidency stack up against that? Has it shown goodwill to the people over personal interest? Has it shown transparency and clarity in their actions? Second, you need competence and integrity. This part demonstrates that one has the competence to deliver what is being promised. This includes technical ability as well as adherence to prior state values. The values for journalistic integrity are well-known and while there is some faltering, senior journalists at least try to maintain their reputation, as that secures their livelihood. Same for academics, as lack of integrity is usually the end of the career (unless they decide to go on right-wing circuits). So how does the presidency stack up to that. Especially in the face of documented lies and misdirections (even in court)? And third, there is the aspect of accountability and governance. To build trust you have to demonstrate that there is an accountability structure that will keep you in check so that folks can trust in your actions. How does that pan out, especially when Trump repeatedly stated that he won't take accountability for any failures, only for successes? I think addressing these questions would provide some more insights into the motivation of trusting the government. For that specific element I wonder if you have sources. From what I read, there was an initial positive response when folks thought that there was a plan for sustained regime change, but since then I have only seen one poll where Iranian Americans were identified showing broad opposition, mostly related to civilian casualties and uncertainty of goals (i.e. cutting through all three elements of the above elements). There was about a third that somewhat or strongly supported it, which is about the same as the group that strongly opposed it. I suspect a lot depends on whether they still have friends and relatives in the region.

This is a bit on the side, but I think the older folks (myself included) might need to revise some of our assumptions on the power structure of the countries in the Middle East. Some (e.g. Lebanon) might still be in similar geopolitically place as they were before, but others might be in a very different position and alignment then they were decades ago. Not that I claim to understand any of that. Just looking at the parties involved in the Yemeni war make my head spin. I think the time of clear blocks of powers might be over, especially when it comes to proxy wars.

It is likely a system borne from the revolution. As you recall, the overthrow of the Shah was a deeply popular movement, which incorporated a lot of secular forces. Hence, there were a lot of promises for a path to democracy before, but then a furious power struggle after the the successful overthrow. There are different viewpoints how that happened but in the aftermath, multiple revolutionary bodies were formed, controlling different aspects of society. I.e. one way to interpret is that because the revolutionary forces were ideologically diverse, it wasn't possible to consolidate into a unifying controlling body. Rather it took time, the formation of specific groups to counter those forces and then to squash opposition over perhaps a decade or so. These structures have largely survived and while not really autonomous as such, they present a sort of slightly decentralized organizational power that can function when the head of state is killed. While this is likely the most likely scenario of deployment, I doubt that they are under the illusion that folks wouldn't immediately blame the Iranian government. They may officially tap dance around that a bit, but they know that everyone knows that those are their proxies. And in fact they have admitted to that a few times, including demanding the inclusion of Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) in the last round of ceasefire agreements. IOW, I don't think anyone in the Iranian government thinks that they can risk deploying nuclear weapons via proxies. Also, I suspect forensics would easily connect it to their enrichment program. So no, unless their government is replaced by folks that are substantially different to what they had before, I doubt that this is a realistic scenario either. But then again, I have gotten quite a bit of appreciation regarding how stupid things can get, so I won't make any bets on the future.

Regime survival is not the same as individual survival. Even if they personally survived, there would be no power base left. Or nation, for that matter. Also, leadership structures in Iran are seemingly a fair bit broader and deeper than, say, Russia. Indeed. Iran even followed the accord for about a year, possibly assuming that Trump might reverse course, which didn't happen, of course. The agreement under Obama would have halted development to about a year out, tearing up the agreement moved the timeline up to a few weeks. A magnificent win. And now a global energy crisis. I mean, that is a good example how even a democratic structure is vulnerable to erratic actions, which leads some credence to the notion that no one should have nukes.

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran. Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off. A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region. While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that. That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter. At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

Also, alcoholism The AtlanticThe FBI Director Is MIAKash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

For the most part, yest. But it is also a matter of how we (as humans) like to name, define and categorize things. The term evolution is often filled with meaning, but mechanistically speaking it really just refers to the fact that gene pools rarely stay constant. So from that definition, the how does not really come into play. In terms of mechanics, we like to categorize how the pool shifts and have created categories like natural and artificial selection (as well as stochastic processes), though often these are more judgement calls. Mathematically, one would rather use terms like directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection as they can be used to model gene pool shifts. But yes, from a biological standpoint any biological entity falls under the same bracket and it doesn't really matter for the process whether we get extinguished by an asteroid or AI killer drones.

Except that makes no sense. Anything that an organism has built or is capable of building is part of the whole tapestry of evolution. Ants do not cheat evolution or death by being social and building homes, they are because of it. And so are we. Many aspects of selection are determined in a non-intuitive way. Sexual selection, for example determines who passes on their genes, but sometimes at the cost of being less able to survive due to expansive plumage, fore example. Or coupling reproduction with death. The distinction between natural and unnatural is purely a human construct and as long as our gene pool varies over time, there is still evolution. It doesn't matter if the factor is medicine or an asteroid.

I am saying that applying a bit of critical thinking would be helpful. What is more likely, we found skeletons of giants but don't document it anywhere and keep it a secret everywhere except for some reasons on the internet. Or perhaps, it is something that someone built? Funny bit is the very internet also helps you to figure out what the source of the image is. But clearly, someone opts not to invest that particular time.

Yeah, it is a bit tricky. Everything resulting in change, regardless of direction is the "normal" process. There is really no definition for a deviation. The only would be the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which a condition where evolution stops.

That argument suggests that evolution follows some kind of determined path, but it doesn't. It is a random walk where stuff along the way nudges steps sometimes in one, or the other direction. Callings some natural and an perversion of it, is a value judgement, which is not baked into the system. I disagree that extinctions are perversions of sorts. They are just part of the process. Some genes persist, other vanish. Sometimes because of selective pressures, sometimes just by chance. There is not perversion in the common sense here.

Is this a serious question? I hope you are aware that this is a sculpture, yes?

From what I have read, this is highly unlikely. Effectively, the Iranian government has deep roots and is not exclusively shaped around specific figures like for example Venezuela. I.e. even if citizens protest (as they did recently) there are multiple systems that can and have suppressed them effectively. Even while some more muted protests are still ongoing, there does not seem a good path for that to get more organized and gain traction. Often, decentralized powers are prone to infighting and self-destabilization. And as a matter of fact, one Iran strategy prior to the US actions, was to simply wait for the last Supreme leader to die as there was a decent chance that the more moderate forces would be able to gain power. This, of course went out of the window after the US attacks. Those attacks had a galvanizing effect on the hardliners and although Ali Khameini himself didn't want his son to succeed him, this is how it turned out. Also, Ali Khamenei was reportedly reluctant to finalize the steps to build nuclear weapons, but the current events have emboldened those in favor of it. In fact, now some see it as a prerequisite to ensure the existence of Iran, which, after the genocidal threats of Trump, unfortunately seems like a rational conclusion.

Good point. Good old Eisenhower, eh?

Maybe, though the question is who can absorb more pain. And even in a collapsed economy, I am not entirely sure what the scenario would look like in which the Iranian government would capitulate. Also, I am wondering how much that would actually change. While Iran had been able to get some revenue from the Strait, I do wonder how much this actually will meaningfully add. Also, would they actually seize Russian, Chinese or Indian ships? There is also a report that Trump wants to block all ports, which seems to be a bit of a tall order (but could also just bluster again). Either way, China will watch that with extreme interest, I am sure.

There is a third possibility. One that is based on a mix of stupidity and dementia, where there the logical calculus is based on what happened 5 minutes ago on Fox News. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to entirely trivialize it, but many of the explanations of decisions on that level generally follow some sort of logical framework that one might follow. Even if it is a value question (e.g. following the tabulation of cost and benefits) there would at least be some foundation for the discussion, even if there are fundamental disagreements. However, the foundation for Trump (less so for Netanyahu) are just not based on reality. I rather think, for example, that Trump did not really understand how tariffs work, and basically once he committed to them, he largely flayed around to see how he can leverages stuff. Perhaps he wanted to initiate a conflict as a distraction from political woes, but his "model" was basically that simply that the weaker one will not do anything to impede the stronger party. After all, that was his personal experience. I sincerely doubt that there was any deeper strategy and he likely simply didn't understand how an inferior party could exact pain by closing the Strait. What might be true with the Go analogy is mostly that he is very reactive. He tends to react in the moment, based on how things appear on media and just goes with it. But Go has an internal logic and you generally don't just mimic what the opponent is doing. Rather, he is demanding that the opponent concedes, without counting the score or even looking at the board.

Honestly, framing it around Go moves make it seem that there is a some sort of standard or acceptable strategic framework. But considering the flailing throughout the operation, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't another spur-of-the-moment decision. "Hey, they are taking the world hostage, why don't we?" The maddening thing is that the US military knew that this was going to happen, but in this case the folks in charge decide to treat it like a literal game. I fear we had a small time frame in human history where we actually took war seriously and as a net negative. Now we get desensitized just by keeping wars going in the background and then even folks like Hegseth glorifying gore and carnage. The dumbest timeline just got a major lobotomy.

To quote a famous strategist and deal-maker: No doubt. I am moderately certain that Trump is strategically not talking to Hegseth so that that one can take the fall. Also a lot of folks apparently were women and people of color, so we can see the true worth of DEI.

Fair. I guess my envy comes from the fact that there many unscrupulous folks out there making money tapping into that. My life would be so much easier if I could just getting paid for making stuff up. Heck, students telling me that with their degree they aspire to become youtubers and influencers is incredibly depressing.