if you live in the world of empiricism, you should quite clearly see that the new york times is a far less reliable source than russia today.
when did rt publish false information designed to mislead the public into war
*crickets*
but, if you're brainwashed, here you go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/world/middleeast/syria-afrin-kurds-ypg.html
Thursday, February 22, 2018
if turkey is serious, it will proceed to completely demolish a bunch of syrian irregulars.
it's like sending the mounties to expel a division of american tanks.
but, the mounties could secure a city in saskatchewan well enough, too. that's what the northwest mounted police were for, right?
so, when the turks don't demolish these syrian irregulars, it should get the point across clearly enough.
it's like sending the mounties to expel a division of american tanks.
but, the mounties could secure a city in saskatchewan well enough, too. that's what the northwest mounted police were for, right?
so, when the turks don't demolish these syrian irregulars, it should get the point across clearly enough.
this is a successful russian psy-op: they got the kurds to welcome the syrians as liberators.
and, the turks played their part quite well, too.
the only remaining question is whether the tillerson-led state department is dumb enough to believe what the turks are saying, or if they're only pretending to be dumb enough, because they've just given up.
either way, the turks are lost.
https://www.rt.com/news/419604-afrin-assad-demonstration-militias/
and, the turks played their part quite well, too.
the only remaining question is whether the tillerson-led state department is dumb enough to believe what the turks are saying, or if they're only pretending to be dumb enough, because they've just given up.
either way, the turks are lost.
https://www.rt.com/news/419604-afrin-assad-demonstration-militias/
you need money to make money....
so, the rich get richer & the poor get poorer.
does that mean you're better off playing the lottery than getting a job?
well, you tell me - how many tickets do you need to buy?
i'll tell you, flat out, that you're not getting ahead through labour. that's the bullshit nonsense that conservatives call the "american dream", and is just a lie to get you to pay taxes.
if you look around, people get ahead though luck, not hard work. it could be the family you're born into. it could be the friends you meet. or, maybe you just have a clover stuck up your ass.
so, the rich get richer & the poor get poorer.
does that mean you're better off playing the lottery than getting a job?
well, you tell me - how many tickets do you need to buy?
i'll tell you, flat out, that you're not getting ahead through labour. that's the bullshit nonsense that conservatives call the "american dream", and is just a lie to get you to pay taxes.
if you look around, people get ahead though luck, not hard work. it could be the family you're born into. it could be the friends you meet. or, maybe you just have a clover stuck up your ass.
so, if you have a lottery with 6 numbers, and you play once, you have a one in a million chance of winning.
what does that mean?
that means that the number you picked is one out of the million possibilities that might come out. so, if you play twice, you have a two in a million chance. if you play 500,000 times, you have a 50% chance. and, if you play all million numbers, you can't lose.
so, if you have the money to put down on every single possibility, and the payout is higher than it costs to play every single number, that is free money. if the tickets are $2, and the payout is $10 million, you can win an easy $8 million (minus taxes...) by putting down that $2 million investment.
now, consider a system where you can also win if you get three, four or five of the six numbers right. then, you wouldn't only win the $8 million. you'd also win every way you could win - which, depending on the rules, could, in total, be more than the jackpot. but, those rules would also produce duplicates that you wouldn't need to play twice.
if you were a mathematician with a programming background, you could calculate a collection of a few thousand numbers that you could play in order to give you a greater than 50% chance of winning. that doesn't guarantee a win every time. but, it does produce a positive expected value, if you do it repeatedly, and know when to stop.
this doesn't help poor people, because you would need thousands of dollars to put down. and, unless you have a very technical background, you're not going to be able to do this.
but, a broke musician with a math degree might take advantage of this, should they be able to raise the $5000-$10000 necessary to put down on it.
it might be hard to convince the people around them, though. especially, if literally none of them passed grade ten math.
what does that mean?
that means that the number you picked is one out of the million possibilities that might come out. so, if you play twice, you have a two in a million chance. if you play 500,000 times, you have a 50% chance. and, if you play all million numbers, you can't lose.
so, if you have the money to put down on every single possibility, and the payout is higher than it costs to play every single number, that is free money. if the tickets are $2, and the payout is $10 million, you can win an easy $8 million (minus taxes...) by putting down that $2 million investment.
now, consider a system where you can also win if you get three, four or five of the six numbers right. then, you wouldn't only win the $8 million. you'd also win every way you could win - which, depending on the rules, could, in total, be more than the jackpot. but, those rules would also produce duplicates that you wouldn't need to play twice.
if you were a mathematician with a programming background, you could calculate a collection of a few thousand numbers that you could play in order to give you a greater than 50% chance of winning. that doesn't guarantee a win every time. but, it does produce a positive expected value, if you do it repeatedly, and know when to stop.
this doesn't help poor people, because you would need thousands of dollars to put down. and, unless you have a very technical background, you're not going to be able to do this.
but, a broke musician with a math degree might take advantage of this, should they be able to raise the $5000-$10000 necessary to put down on it.
it might be hard to convince the people around them, though. especially, if literally none of them passed grade ten math.
no, i don't support giving teachers guns; i've been clear that i think this is a cultural problem, that will neither be solved by more guns or less guns (this is all supply-side economics...) but by changing how people think - by modifying demand.
but, america is stubborn. and, frankly, pretty stupid.
so, what are some better ideas than putting guns in schools?
1) apparently, one of the scenarios that comes up often is that teachers end up stuck in rooms, waiting for the shooters to come through the doors. what if they could lock the doors? tightly? wouldn't that help? at the least, it would cost a lot of bullets to get through the door.
2) i don't want cops in schools any more than i want teachers with guns. but, there are ways we can use technology to our advantage. if they had weaponized drones in strategic, but hidden, places, and a couple of trained operators, shooters could be taken out remotely. teachers could have emergency buttons to push that would set off alarms.
3) i've always wondered why nobody ever uses the sprinkler system in this kind of situation. it could very well be enough to neutralize a shooter.
i think what i'm getting at is that it's not hard to come up with better ideas than giving teachers guns...
but, america is stubborn. and, frankly, pretty stupid.
so, what are some better ideas than putting guns in schools?
1) apparently, one of the scenarios that comes up often is that teachers end up stuck in rooms, waiting for the shooters to come through the doors. what if they could lock the doors? tightly? wouldn't that help? at the least, it would cost a lot of bullets to get through the door.
2) i don't want cops in schools any more than i want teachers with guns. but, there are ways we can use technology to our advantage. if they had weaponized drones in strategic, but hidden, places, and a couple of trained operators, shooters could be taken out remotely. teachers could have emergency buttons to push that would set off alarms.
3) i've always wondered why nobody ever uses the sprinkler system in this kind of situation. it could very well be enough to neutralize a shooter.
i think what i'm getting at is that it's not hard to come up with better ideas than giving teachers guns...
yeah.
zero fucks.
justin, just get out of the way so the party can salvage the next election. this isn't your fault, really. they should have never let you run.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-use-taxpayer-money-to-fly-celebrity-chef-to-india-1.3814009
zero fucks.
justin, just get out of the way so the party can salvage the next election. this isn't your fault, really. they should have never let you run.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-use-taxpayer-money-to-fly-celebrity-chef-to-india-1.3814009
in the distant future, people will look back and wonder what the root cause of america's decline was.
and, very few will look to the system nixon created, which was really an effect rather than a cause.
the root cause of america's decline was the anti-intellectualism attached to the hippie movement. and, i don't mean the anti-war movement or the civil rights movements - these were things that might have succeeded (in fact, both failed) had they been attached to a strong union movement with an interest in scientific advancement.
but, the hippies rejected all of that in favour of a mindless collapse into vacuous spiritualism, individualistic selfishness, environmental catastrophism and simple magical thinking, then called it a "social revolution".
in truth, the hippies were the most backwards, reactionary force that the world has ever known. and, they ruined america's chances to have an actual social revolution - not for a generation, but permanently. it was roughly 1970 that we stopped evolving as a society.
zappa was a visionary. and, you should interpret him as a historian as much as an artist; it is his narrative that will survive, as future generations look back not just in horror, but in anger. for the failure of the hippies is historic, given where they existed in time.
they really were the most important generation. but, they blew it.
and, very few will look to the system nixon created, which was really an effect rather than a cause.
the root cause of america's decline was the anti-intellectualism attached to the hippie movement. and, i don't mean the anti-war movement or the civil rights movements - these were things that might have succeeded (in fact, both failed) had they been attached to a strong union movement with an interest in scientific advancement.
but, the hippies rejected all of that in favour of a mindless collapse into vacuous spiritualism, individualistic selfishness, environmental catastrophism and simple magical thinking, then called it a "social revolution".
in truth, the hippies were the most backwards, reactionary force that the world has ever known. and, they ruined america's chances to have an actual social revolution - not for a generation, but permanently. it was roughly 1970 that we stopped evolving as a society.
zappa was a visionary. and, you should interpret him as a historian as much as an artist; it is his narrative that will survive, as future generations look back not just in horror, but in anger. for the failure of the hippies is historic, given where they existed in time.
they really were the most important generation. but, they blew it.
so, the russians are reporting that syrian troops are in afrin, and there was no turkish attack on them.
this passes my bullshit detectors.
but, i have to admit that i expected the russians to wait until their positions were more secure before they went full bond villain. and, this may actually be an error on their behalf...
this passes my bullshit detectors.
but, i have to admit that i expected the russians to wait until their positions were more secure before they went full bond villain. and, this may actually be an error on their behalf...
if you're curious, i actually think the apocalypse already happened in the seventh century.
anybody standing in the levant at any point between the appearance of the romans and the rise of the muslims would see, as clear as day, that there was going to be a massive battle between the romans (west) and the persians (east) and that it would end the world as they knew it. it's not a particularly deep prophesy.
would you call me a prophet a thousand years from now if i predicted a catastrophic war between america and russia and, in the end, it actually happens?
(and, recall that these texts are not as old as they claim to be)
it boggles my mind when americans try and argue that the biblical east is russia, because, standing in jerusalem, moscow is actually to the west.
the east was always persia...
....and the war already happened.
so, where is the messiah? did we go through 1000 years of hell? please...
but, it happened, and god didn't come back, so can we carry on, now?
anybody standing in the levant at any point between the appearance of the romans and the rise of the muslims would see, as clear as day, that there was going to be a massive battle between the romans (west) and the persians (east) and that it would end the world as they knew it. it's not a particularly deep prophesy.
would you call me a prophet a thousand years from now if i predicted a catastrophic war between america and russia and, in the end, it actually happens?
(and, recall that these texts are not as old as they claim to be)
it boggles my mind when americans try and argue that the biblical east is russia, because, standing in jerusalem, moscow is actually to the west.
the east was always persia...
....and the war already happened.
so, where is the messiah? did we go through 1000 years of hell? please...
but, it happened, and god didn't come back, so can we carry on, now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)