Random Thread

[linguistcat]

I've seen that post on tumblr.

And on the subject of dear, I think it's pretty much Deer Were Not Made Around Cars, So they Don't Understand What To Do.

[zompist]

I wonder if wild horses have all these problems. Artificial selection can mess up a species in weird ways.

[fusijui]

Wild horses do have the same problems (at least, catastrophic leg failure, weak lungs, and collapsing/self-knotting intestines) from what I've read.

I remember reading once (decades back) an article speculating that the genus might have gone extinct already if it weren't for domestication, and constant replenishment of 'wild' populations by feral ones. They're sad and awful.

[malloc]

I remember reading once (decades back) an article speculating that the genus might have gone extinct already if it weren't for domestication, and constant replenishment of 'wild' populations by feral ones. They're sad and awful.

Then how did they evolve in the first place? That is, what made them evolutionarily viable in the past but no longer now? Also what about zebras, also part of the Equus genus but not domesticated?

[keenir]

I remember reading once (decades back) an article speculating that the genus might have gone extinct already if it weren't for domestication, and constant replenishment of 'wild' populations by feral ones. They're sad and awful.

Then how did they evolve in the first place? That is, what made them evolutionarily viable in the past but no longer now? Also what about zebras, also part of the Equus genus but not domesticated?

Zebras (and onagers et al) tend to get ignored in articles that talk about the singularness of modern horses, and how they're either doomed (see above) or are the best choice mankind ever made since deciding to walk on two legs.

Heck, they're still viable -- i think there are feral horses in Australia, sometimes alongside, sometimes apart from the feral camels.

[Man in Space]

I wonder if wild horses have all these problems. Artificial selection can mess up a species in weird ways.

Isn’t Przewalski’s horse the most basal? I wonder how it stacks up compared to the rest of Equestria.

Also, unexpected problems of ridding yourself of social media: Muscle memory.

[malloc]

Now granted, I agree that horses seem remarkably nerfed compared with most animals. Indeed they seem almost as flimsy as humans, which is really saying something.

[linguistcat]

Humans are actually pretty robust in some ways. Many animals go into shock and die fairly quickly if they break a bone, and many others simply will die long term from inability to get food or evade predators. However, while humans sometimes go into shock in a manner that needs immediate attention to get through from a break, a lot of humans can actually survive pretty well if pushed even with a broken bone. Humans also have a high tolerance for things that most other animals find toxic. While not the physically strongest or fastest, with training (or just growing up with it), humans can run longer distances than even dogs/wolves, and can get back into long distance travel on foot at pretty much any age, as long as an injury or other health issue doesn't get in the way.

But also remember, survival of the fittest does not simply mean the survival of the strongest or fastest. It's survival of the most fit to the available niches. The niche of hypersocial omnivore persistence/intelligent predator is actually fairly well filled by humans. The niche of grass powered runner is well filled by horses. Evolution does not optimize, it finds the good enough option and iterates off of that.

Also while zebras look similar to horses and are closely related, as far as I'm aware the difference between them is that horses will bite or kick if they feel they have to, zebras will just to have something to do.

[Torco]

yet another thing which we have in common with dogs, besides being high in stamina: dogs will just go through life -for a few months at least- in such an internal condition as vets will go "lmao what?". i've seen -not being a vet, but having dated one for years- dogs who were more cancer than dog on the inside, and they still barked and walked and did dog things till they were sent to the farm.

[Travis B.]

Humans also have a high tolerance for things that most other animals find toxic.

Case in point, apparently humans, along with their ape relatives, have substantially higher alcohol tolerances than most other animals to enable them to live off fruit which has started to ferment.

[Man in Space]

I’m building a power loader (from Aliens) costume for a party I’ve been invited to on Saturday. My dad and my buddy Tyler have been assisting. Tyler has shown a particular aptitude for solving logistical problems.

He’s actually really visually creative (he made the image I currently use as my phone background, an armored knight with a dragon). I’ve decided that for Christmas I’m going to get him a Wacom tablet or something, so he doesn’t have to be stuck squiggling with his finger on the phone screen.

[fusijui]

But also remember, survival of the fittest does not simply mean the survival of the strongest or fastest. It's survival of the most fit to the available niches. [...]Evolution does not optimize, it finds the good enough option and iterates off of that.

Thanks for putting this better, and more quickly too, than I would have.

I'd just add that, if anything, populations are under constant selective pressure not to optimize. Just to do as little as possible to keep doing what they're doing.

[Man in Space]

I was invited to a friend’s Halloween party. There is a costume contest. This is my entry. Total build time: About 40 man-hours.

[Travis B.]

I was invited to a friend’s Halloween party. There is a costume contest. This is my entry. Total build time: About 40 man-hours.

Nice!

[Man in Space]

I’ve decided I want to go to film school. AML is killing me; my moving to a chartered institution proper from a contracting firm was simply trading one circle of hell for another.

[Ares Land]

The key thing is that big-C Communism's "socialism" never achieved the goals that it claimed to seek. It did not result in freedom for the worker from their capitalist exploiters but rather their subjugation by their new exploiters, that is, the Party. It did not result in greater standards of living than capitalism but rather capitalism managed to provide a better life for the everyday worker than it did. It had to resort to naked oppression simply to not implode on itself, so when this oppression started failing, it collapsed in on itself.

I don't know, man. never achieved *any* of the goals it claimed to seek?

I'm taking this over to another thread, as this is interesting but no longer about the Middle East.

Big-C Communism did its best work in capitalist countries. Looking at Europe... in France the healthcare system, a good deal of the labor laws and some good bits of the welfare system were directly implemented by communists (who were in government at the time) -- mind that these were openly Stalinian Communists too. Germany got similar laws thanks to (I believe Christian Democrats), but of course the threat of big-C communism was a huge factor. I think Italy falls somewhere in between. Labour in Britain used to be very bright red. The Social Democrats in various Scandinavian countries had I think a complex relationship with Marxism but they were still very ambitious in their approach.

There's a very interesting paradox, in that socialists and communists in theoretically capitalist countries achieved, I think more than in the Eastern Block when they were able to decide on politics and that markets are overall freer and healthier in capitalists countries where socialism is seen as a viable option.

One thing I noted here in France is that left-wing governments tend to open markets whereas right-winger/centrist ones tend to close them. Germany is both a powerhouse economically and devoted to the idea of a mixed economy.
As for failure modes: I remember you mentioned that Chile (in theory devoted to pure orthodox Chicago school capitalism) is really bad at free markets. The US these days are another great example of an economy devoted to capitalism that sucks at capitalism.

So maybe you need capitalism for functional socialism and socialism for functional capitalism. I don't know if anyone explored this paradox more competently than I have.

As for the Soviet Union being somewhat a positive influence on the Western Block: I think that was true until about the '70s. Rich First World countries had to offer at least as good a deal as the Eastern block did; communism was definitely a viable option.
I think this stopped working in the 70s; after that it significantly hindered the Left.
In Europe, at least, left-wing parties had to waste a significant amount of energy explaining that the Soviet Union was not what they had in mind.
I don't think it's coincidence that the Chicago school or Thatcherism or similar ideas really took off in the 70s.

[Creyeditor]

Just wanted to throw in that labour laws and stuff in Germany have a complex history. Famously, Bismarck (a conservative, anticatholic, prussian monarchist) introduced social security laws to fend of socialists. Works council on the other hand were introduced in the short period of council communism (supported by socialists, social democrats and communists) in Germany after the first world war and then kept alive by social democrats and conservatives after that. Of course, lots of it was also (re-)introduced after WW2. I am under the impression that some more recent changes are also re-implementations of similar systems in the GDR, like full-time daycare etc.

[zompist]

There's a very interesting paradox, in that socialists and communists in theoretically capitalist countries achieved, I think more than in the Eastern Block when they were able to decide on politics and that markets are overall freer and healthier in capitalists countries where socialism is seen as a viable option.

I think you're right. Though maybe it's only a paradox if we presuppose that there are only two options. I think there's a habitable zone going from Rooseveltian liberalism to European social democracy to some sort of democratic socialism.

And yeah, leftist ideologues are pretty darn good at implementing social democratic policies. That's true in the US too: a lot of activism is done by socialists and communists. It probably frustrates the hell out of them, but the political situation saves them and society from their worst impulses and liberates their best ones.

I don't think it's coincidence that the Chicago school or Thatcherism or similar ideas really took off in the 70s.

I've been trying to understand this for forty years.

In short, I think the end of the postwar boom hit hard, on both sides of the pond. It has never been a good idea to be in charge when a depression hits.

And a bunch more things, but mostly: the Southern Strategy works— blame the minorities and get the poor to ally with the rich against them.

[Travis B.]

There's a very interesting paradox, in that socialists and communists in theoretically capitalist countries achieved, I think more than in the Eastern Block when they were able to decide on politics and that markets are overall freer and healthier in capitalists countries where socialism is seen as a viable option.

I think you're right. Though maybe it's only a paradox if we presuppose that there are only two options. I think there's a habitable zone going from Rooseveltian liberalism to European social democracy to some sort of democratic socialism.

This is why I support even your marginally left-of-center Democrats even though I personally am a democratic socialist ─ yes, they may not be socialists, they may not even be social democrats, but what they have to offer is still better than what we have, and the main alternative that is offered within the structures we have is simply horrible. To insist on socialism or bust smacks will inevitably just make life much worse for the people as a whole.

And yeah, leftist ideologues are pretty darn good at implementing social democratic policies. That's true in the US too: a lot of activism is done by socialists and communists. It probably frustrates the hell out of them, but the political situation saves them and society from their worst impulses and liberates their best ones.

Back when I could actually call myself an activist the people I allied myself with varied from garden-variety left liberals to big-C Communists, and we all had to seek goals that you could call "practical" within the existing structures, and in this context people who might have supported Stalin or Mao at another point in history ended up differing from oneself primarily at a theoretical level, irrelevant to what we were attempting to achieve then.

[foxcatdog]

ZBB discord server when.