I agree that societal instability stem from problems within the elites, but not sure it's due to 'elite overproduction' necessarily. I think it has more to do with divergence of interests within the elites. Even without elite overproduction, if the interests of a significant segment of the elites diverged from the interests of the rest of the elites, then you will have societal breakdown, civil war, etc.
One example is the american revolution where the one group of elites in the british empire wanted good relations with the indians to protect their fur trade while another group of elites wanted to invade native areas and steal their land. Don't think there was an issue of elite overproduction in the british empire in the mid 1700s. But there was an issue of divergent interests and there was no room for compromise as these competing interests directly conflicted with each other.
Another one is the civil war, where the interests of the industrial north ( the desire to protect industry via tariffs ) directly conflicted withe the interests of the agrarian south ( who wanted to remove tariffs ) so they could sell cotton/agricultural goods to foreign markets. Once again, I don't think there was an overproduction of elites in the north or the south in the 1850s.
But I guess if the elite overproduction was severe enough, it could structural conflict of interests. But my guess is that conflicts would naturally arise amongs the elites long before elite overproduction.
> I think you're really fundamentally misunderstanding treatment modalities that allow people to be better, because you're conflating having an injury with weakness.
I don't think the white woman with an emotional support dog who got the black man kicked off the flight had any ptsd.
> Ex-soldiers with PTSD are one of the best studied.
Do they need animals to serve as their crutch to go everywhere? Don't think so. I have plenty of ex-soldiers in my family. None of them ever had an emotional support animal.
> So either you doubt the realism of PTSD
No. I think people can have traumatic experiences. Pretty much everyone deals with it and moves on with thier lives like they have throughout history. The "business" around PTSD is what I have an issue with.
> That begs the question, what is a treatment that doesn't foster weakness?
Might want to look up what "begs the question" really means.
> Mental illnesses and their effective treatments don't care about whether you believe in them or not.
Right. Good one.
You obviously didn't read the article and just want to peddle more weakness justification or virtue signal or have financial incentives to respond the way you did.
Owners ( of assets ) have been making a killing. Pretty much any kind of asset - stocks, real estate, collectibles, crypto, etc. Of course the more you own, the better you did. So the 0.01 did much better than the 0.1% who did much better than the 1%...
"That we allowed the proliferation of emotional support animals in the first place tells us a lot about the evolving nature of the civil rights industry...A network of trial lawyers and medical entrepreneurs found a profitable niche in colluding with a growing number of Americans regarding themselves through the prism of victimhood that happens to confer legally protected status onto them."
So well stated. Civil rights movement turned into the civil rights industry.
And the people running much of social media are enabling mental, emotional and moral weakness. Instead of encouraging people to overcome and be better, they foster weakness. That anyone could claim they need a emotional support animal without facing ridicule is beyond me. Surprised the author isn't cancelled for being disability-phobic and spewing hate speech.
You claimed that the iranian state existed independently since 1500s. I proved you wrong.
> the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran
"The treaty confirmed the ceding and inclusion of what is now Dagestan, eastern Georgia, most of the Republic of Azerbaijan and parts of northern Armenia from Iran into the Russian Empire."
You can find the others. I won't bother with the sphere of influences carved out by russia and britain within iran itself where iran had to grant privileges to russia and britain over a few provinces. If you look at the map, almost 2/3rd of iran proper was under russian or british "influence".
If it is easier for you to see rather than read...
> The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia.
Other than when the arabs and the mongols took charge for a bit. Right? Pretty major events in iranian and world history you completely forgot about.
> The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence
Sure it can because iran lost a significant portion of its territory to russia/britain in the past few hundred years. Modern iran exists as it is today because of britain and russia. Iran was much bigger before the rise of the west. Nation-state is a modern european concept. Iran's landmass looks the way it does because of all the wars lost to britain and russia.
> I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity
Then why are you arguing with me?
> Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.
What? That's as ridiculous as saying the opium wars and the european colonization of china doesn't matter for political analysis. That the colonization of india doesn't matter. The partitioning of india doesn't matter? Since the chinese, indians, turks, etc all rule their own countries, european colonization doesn't matter?
What you wrote is so absurd that it's the political/historical equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Modern iran looks the way it does, geographically and politically, because of western expansion/invasion. It's a nation-state and not a empire because of the west.
This will be my last response as I know you'll just find another topic to argue about. To claim that iran had political/state/government, territorial, etc continuity since the 1500s when iran lost tons of land to russia/britain, it collapsed from an empire to a western forced 'nation-state' and had huge swathes of territory cordoned off in sphere of influence is absurd.
> The Founders did not write that into the Constitution.
Because the founders wanted voting to be controlled at the state level, not the federal level...
> Propaganda is what you're writing.
Historical facts is propaganda?
So what is propaganda? That only landowning whites could vote? Democracy came from the ancient greeks? That ancient greeks owned slaves and only allowed wealthy slave owners to vote?
Then you should focus on the optimization phase. Where indexes, table statistics, etc are involved. The parsing and even translating sql from one dialect to another wouldn't give much for you to analyze.
I'm assuming you want to learn about query performance and execution plans?
Frankly, if you want to analyze queries, just install the rdbms, set up a data warehouse and use the tools available to analyze query plans/etc. There are so much that affects queries beyond the actual sql since the hardware and data load affects the queries. You could run the same sql query and end up with wildly different query/execution plans depending on how the data/tables/indexes are changed on your system.
> The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent."
Does that make a difference? You are either continuously independent or not continuously independent.
> But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously.
No. You either are independent or not independent. It's basic logic.
> Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter.
Should be a clue to you that canada isn't independent. No country that worships the queen of another country is. I never considered canada an independent country.
> Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.
None of these are independent countries. Not sure about abu dhabi as I don't know about about it.
Nice little distraction you took us on. Funny how you completely ignored the part about iran being invaded and conquered. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to double down and take us on a tangent. Nice. I can see where this is going.
That iran has not been "more or less" continuously independent nation isn't a matter of debate. It's a matter of historical and political and military fact.
Apple has to store data of chinese citizens in china? And Apple has to adhere to chinese laws in china? How insane.
It's crazy how deluded the "CCP crowd" are. Apparently, the "CCP crowd" thinks companies are allowed to do business in another country and not abide by their laws.
Are you going to go insane since the EU requires tech companies to store EU citizens data within the EU?
> By Lenin's definition the all those Democratic People's Republics really were democratic.
Not by lenin's definition. Just the definition of democracy and where it came from. We get democracy comes from the greeks - where only the wealthy slave owning elites could vote.
The founders also followed that model. Only wealthy landowning whites could vote. The first few elections only like 4 or 5% of the population voted.
Isn't it crazy how propaganda has shifted your understanding of democracy? Democracy was never "of the people, by the people, for the people ", it was always about the elite few.
> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran.
I wouldn't say completely false.
> An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500.
More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant.
It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran.
Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.
> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals
Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french.
> when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture
Even with homogenous cultures, no guarantee of "brotherhood of man". Look at north and south korea. The elites will always find something to fight over.
> Maybe with the right governments they can work out deals like we work out with Canada and Mexico with regard to shared resources
It's not the "right" governments. It's called an insurmountable power differential. Canada and mexico simple have to do what they are told. We've fought wars against canada( british empire ) and mexico and taken significant amount of territory from both to ensure that these countries "share their resources" as told. The only way this power dynamic would change if an outside force with enough power helps either canada or mexico challenge the US. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
> but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt.
The kurds are the outgroup everywhere - turkey, iraq, iran, etc. The kurds have been used by the US/Europe as a separatist thorn in the side of many middle east nations to keep them unstable. Similar to what we are trying to do with the uyghurs in china, rohingya in myanmar, the balochs in pakistan, india, africa, etc. One of the benefits of having drawn out nations in africa is that the nations are full of different ethnic groups that can be pit against each other making these african nations easier to control. Not sure it was the original intent, but that's where we are right now.
> In my view, reproducibility is neither strictly necessary nor sufficient for scientific progress.
In your view? Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress because it defines what science is. It's the backbone of science. Hypothesis,testing/experiments. It's what separates science from math, arts and pseudosciences like social "sciences".
> I'm sure if you went back through the literature on something like electromagnetism, you would find results that fail to replicate, yet the theory of electromagnetism if applied properly is remarkably robust.
How would it be "robust" if it couldn't be replicated? How would the theory of electromagnetism be robust if it failed to produce replicable results?
> Scientific results can be strengthened by replication
No. It can only be a "scientific result" if it can be replicated/tested. It's definitional.
> Discovery of a psychological "effect" is perfectly scientific and interesting
No it isn't if it can't be test/replicated/reproduced. It's not science. It's something else altogether.
> And if those sciences are also plagued by irreproducibility, then they may embrace scientific methodology without producing a useful scientific knowledge base.
There is no "scientific methodology" without testability/replication/reproducibility.
> He’s like “well look, 90% of everything is shit”
I think there is a difference between "being shit" and "being fake" though. 'do you really think it’s true that 50-70% of biomedical research is fake?'
Fake seems more insidious and problematic.
Also this brings up a very troubling issue. If 90% of the "research is fake/shit" and lets say that means that 90% of the researchers are "fake/shit", then it means that 'scientific' consensus is also likely "fake/shit".
This is why I'm always skeptical of 'scientific' consensus. Science is about evidence, testing, etc. Not consensus - which is the realm of politics, law, etc.
And I'd suspect 99.99% of social 'sciences' is probably 'fake/shit' and that is used to push/change society/government/etc.
Or, we just have a natural/historical aversion to centralized power. Much of the nation initially started out believing that power should be local. Or you can simply make up nonsense about 'mark of the beast'.
It's crazy how a nation of "religious fundamentalists" created the modern world. Crazy how "religious fundamentalists" created the wealthiest nation.
There has always been a backlash against centralized/federalized anything. From taxes to gun registration to you name it. As it should be. But you'll be happy to know that the trend is towards more centralized control and power.
At this point, it's either mass hysteria, a weapon of some kind or something common within this group. Are these officials forced to carry some kind of equipment that can cause this? Were they required to get some shots/drugs, implants or training that causes mental/auditory/etc issues? It's also remotely possible it's just another ploy to foster more fear in population.
It is odd that it apparently affects a particular specialized group of people and that they would make this public without figuring things out first.
One example is the american revolution where the one group of elites in the british empire wanted good relations with the indians to protect their fur trade while another group of elites wanted to invade native areas and steal their land. Don't think there was an issue of elite overproduction in the british empire in the mid 1700s. But there was an issue of divergent interests and there was no room for compromise as these competing interests directly conflicted with each other.
Another one is the civil war, where the interests of the industrial north ( the desire to protect industry via tariffs ) directly conflicted withe the interests of the agrarian south ( who wanted to remove tariffs ) so they could sell cotton/agricultural goods to foreign markets. Once again, I don't think there was an overproduction of elites in the north or the south in the 1850s.
But I guess if the elite overproduction was severe enough, it could structural conflict of interests. But my guess is that conflicts would naturally arise amongs the elites long before elite overproduction.