ShalmaneserIII
ShalmaneserIII t1_iw6rqnp wrote
Reply to comment by EndofGods in TIL JP Morgan bailed out banks in 1907 but a severe recession occured anyway. Nelson Aldrich, a powerful senator with close ties to Morgan, led a mission to Europe in 1908 to study the workings of the central banks in England, France and Germany. The Federal Reserve was created a short time later by mankls3
> A private banking system was previously defeated, but they kept trying.
And they keep trying. Bitcoin, for example. What could go wrong with private money? Dunno, how about the last few times it was tried.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iw6reia wrote
Reply to comment by Scrivener-of-Doom in TIL JP Morgan bailed out banks in 1907 but a severe recession occured anyway. Nelson Aldrich, a powerful senator with close ties to Morgan, led a mission to Europe in 1908 to study the workings of the central banks in England, France and Germany. The Federal Reserve was created a short time later by mankls3
> it's astonishing that the USA is even worse at delivering a stable banking system.
You mean before we actually created a stable banking system?
ShalmaneserIII t1_ivmnp88 wrote
Reply to comment by Jokerang in TIL that the Persian King Xerxes was so enraged after a storm destroyed his bridges that he ordered the sea be given 300 whiplashes, and branded it with red-hot irons as the soldiers shouted at the water by LethalPoopstain
Herodotus was born around 484 BC. During the Achaemenid dynasty, around that time, the Persian empire had 44% of the world's population.
The Greek poleis were scrappy little states on the outside of the largest empire (relatively to share of global population) the world has ever seen. It's inevitable that a lot of what they did and thought was going to be done in relation to that huge empire just to the East. "Yeah, Persia's basically what civilization is, we should acknowledge that and imitate parts of it" or "Yeah, Persia kind of sucks, look at all this bad stuff they do, we should do our own thing in contrast to them."
You see how this works nowadays, too.
ShalmaneserIII t1_ivmmvi8 wrote
Reply to comment by semiomni in TIL that the Persian King Xerxes was so enraged after a storm destroyed his bridges that he ordered the sea be given 300 whiplashes, and branded it with red-hot irons as the soldiers shouted at the water by LethalPoopstain
Symbolic actions. Kind of like when women would burn their bras for feminism.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iuhtvbl wrote
Reply to comment by Target880 in ELI5 If the birthrate has declined by 20%, why does everything seem more crowded now? by StopCut
> The general trend today is people moving to large cities from the countryside and smaller cities.
Suburbs. People like the suburbs..
Young people and immigrants move to cities to make their careers, then get the hell out when they're established. Covid didn't help, and the ability to work from home in more jobs certainly didn't help.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iuhoy1u wrote
Reply to comment by Tuga_Lissabon in ELI5 How did knights participate in tournaments like jousting without killing themselves? by QuantumHamster
Not nearly as much as jousting that chick with syphilis.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iuhounz wrote
Reply to comment by TonyR600 in ELI5 How did knights participate in tournaments like jousting without killing themselves? by QuantumHamster
> What stops me from putting my wooden stick to his head, killing him and claiming it was an accident
His equally well-armed and armored friends, probably.
These were a bit of a rowdy bunch. Think biker gangs getting riled up and you can imagine how your "oops" is going to get you killed anyhow.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iuf52wo wrote
Practice!
Also, if you want to give doctors uninterrupted sleep, you need more doctors. They're more expensive than people want to pay for.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iu4uzc8 wrote
Reply to comment by eloel- in ELI5: Why does it seem as if most every day use items have carcinogens or other chemicals that can harm or kill you? by thedl894
Nobody bothers to count that. How long would it take before we noticed that carrots were as dangerous as cigarettes if they were?
ShalmaneserIII t1_iu4sdsk wrote
Reply to comment by eloel- in ELI5: Why does it seem as if most every day use items have carcinogens or other chemicals that can harm or kill you? by thedl894
If you wanted an all-natural lifestyle, you'd have to live in a cave and kill your dinner with a club. Even then, the smoke from the cooking fire might get you.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itz4fde wrote
Reply to comment by BiBoFieTo in TIL that the fragrance/perfume given as a gift to the Marquis de Lafayette by George Washington, is still produced by the same manufacturer today. The fragrance has been worn by Washington, John Quincy Adams, JFK, George Gershwin, and countless others. by mcmcplok
Sure, sure, but JFK didn't do too badly, right?
ShalmaneserIII t1_ituuliy wrote
Reply to comment by francisdavey in TIL The European 30 Years' War 1618 - 1648 began with Czech nobles throwing two Habsburg governors out of Prague castle window onto a huge dungheap. The corresponding carnage - fought over the issue of religious freedom following the Protestant Reformation - left millions dead. by Royal_Bumblebee_
It's a triumph of the Politiques- people who don't give a damn which side is right or wrong, they just want the squabbling to stop so the basic activities of the country can go on unimpeded.
We could use more of those.
ShalmaneserIII t1_ituesxo wrote
Reply to comment by Upperphonny in Was this behavior and culture like that with the wealthy Englishmen in the early 20th century? by Upperphonny
It seems to be pretty much inevitable when you have people who don't need to actually labor to live- they get eccentric, because nothing checks their behavior but their social group, and the whole social group has no checks at all on it.
Perhaps for a modern case, consider retired people with comfortable pensions- they get on Facebook and turn odd. Now picture an entire lifetime spent like that.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itsqnkg wrote
Reply to comment by jawfish2 in Eli5: I don't understand why there seems to be a general consensus that gdp will continue a trend of growth, and why this would be beneficial, considering the cyclical nature of economies and empires rising and falling. Isn't economic downturn on some level unavoidable or even beneficial? by candymannequin
> I would say they look to something like ecological balance as a sustainable model.
Except this is not remotely how ecology works. Species grow and use all the resources they can gain, then generally die out when circumstances change or disasters strike (or both).
The entire planet is composed of endless cycles of boom and bust- why not human society?
ShalmaneserIII t1_itpwpuv wrote
Reply to comment by wwarnout in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy
Why only charge them for the downside?
Let's say that the transport system that runs on oil and coal generates ten times the value (just picking numbers) of the sale price of the oil and coal that powered it. Should the company get a share of that?
ShalmaneserIII t1_itpf6vx wrote
Reply to comment by soks86 in TIL that in a series of experiments in the 1950s, Solomon Asch asked a group of actors and a single test subject what the longest line was in a "vision test". The actors would intentionally answer incorrectly, causing the subject to also answer incorrectly, despite it being very obvious. by Amateur_Validator
> Further on the topic, how would you find people who exhibit group-think immunity?
For that matter, how would you get them to participate in the test properly?
ShalmaneserIII t1_itpf3uh wrote
Reply to comment by PoopMobile9000 in TIL that in a series of experiments in the 1950s, Solomon Asch asked a group of actors and a single test subject what the longest line was in a "vision test". The actors would intentionally answer incorrectly, causing the subject to also answer incorrectly, despite it being very obvious. by Amateur_Validator
They occasionally call this "Chesterton's Fence", after a passage from an essay by G.K. Chesterton.
Basically, if you don't see the point of a fence being in a location and want to take it down, that's not a good reason in itself. You need to know why the fence was put up in the first place. Someone had a reason to make the effort to put up the fence, and until you know why you don't know the consequences of taking it down.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itperq2 wrote
Reply to comment by vyralmonkey in TIL that in a series of experiments in the 1950s, Solomon Asch asked a group of actors and a single test subject what the longest line was in a "vision test". The actors would intentionally answer incorrectly, causing the subject to also answer incorrectly, despite it being very obvious. by Amateur_Validator
> And you can either think for yourself and act intelligently, or follow the mob
The one problem with "acting intelligently" is that it requires a lot of background information in the situation being considered. For usual situations, you can pick up the necessary background, but for unusual ones you probably don't have time.
"Crowdsourcing" the decision makes a bit of sense there- maybe someone has information and experience that's good and is acting on it, and people near them are following suit.
It's not perfect, of course, but it's not unreasonable.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itfguhp wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?
And yet, for those of us who do enjoy life, this is justified.
Now this puts you in something of a state if we take you at your word- you're surrounded by a planet full of psychopaths who will gleefully bring into existence those who suffer just to share what they deem a pleasure with others, generation after generation, era after era.
And yet, you wish to continue living among such sadists. Why is that?
ShalmaneserIII t1_itdv08w wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
And there are billions who do enjoy life. Are those examples you list a reason why those billions should not live and enjoy life?
Again, "I'm not happy, therefore you shouldn't exist" is the position of the school shooter, not a rational human being.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itb8iud wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
So let's rephrase your point: "I'm not enjoying life, therefore no humans who are enjoying life should exist."
Sounds a bit extreme, doesn't it?
A second thing to ask is why we'd remotely be obligated to keep all people happy instead of just most, or even some. People who don't want to exist are, in most cases, one jump away from not. If they don't want to do that either, well...not our problem.
ShalmaneserIII t1_itakx8i wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
Apply it at a species level- if humanity suffers some overall, but considers it worthwhile overall, it is worth humanity continuing, regardless if some people draw the short straw.
ShalmaneserIII t1_it9radu wrote
Reply to comment by MyNameIsNonYaBizniz in The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering: MIT professor Kieran Setiya on how philosophy can help us navigate loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd. by philosophybreak
Mainly you have to abandon the idea that suffering is of no value. It's not pleasant, by definition, and we generally do not seek it out, but a life entirely without suffering may be worse than one that had some.
ShalmaneserIII t1_isvf90e wrote
Reply to comment by BowlerAny761 in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17
It'd probably work as long as people remembered they have to do heroic things to be a hero, rather than just being awarded it as a right.
ShalmaneserIII t1_ixls3r6 wrote
Reply to comment by natetcu in ELI5: Why couldn't something that says "Cook at 400 degrees for 15 minutes" theoretically be cooked at 6000 degrees for 1 minute? by BitchImLilBaby
Yes, but there a too-hot outside and a too-cold inside is delicious. Pittsburgh Rare is a fine thing.
It's not so great for cooking chicken.