In all honesty, I love both rakfisk and lutefisk. They are fantastic and wildly underrated food. I will die on this hill.

Oh, and sursild, sennepssild, and all that other good sild stuff. That’s also awesome.

The swedes can keep the surströmning to themselves though. That shit is not fit for human consumption.

culturally appropriate tasty

Screams in northern Scandinavian

One might even say that dampening is making things damp!

I second this! I was in the US for a while and quickly realised that doing constant conversions was a PITA, so I learned some rough reference points in imperial.

I think it’s good to get some small and some large reference points, which make it easy to guesstimate other things based on what you know. Mine were (given in metric here):

• A glass of beer is 0.5 L.
• A big barrel is about 200L (0.2 m^3).
• My walk to work is 3 km, a long hike is 25 km.
• A very short person is about 150 cm, a very tall one is about 2 m.
• I can deadlift about 100 kg, and bicep curl around 15 kg.
• A potato is on the order of 100g, while a watermelon is around 2kg.
• 70 C is a nice sauna, 25 C is a nice summer day, 10 C is chilly, 0 C is sleet-temperature, -10 C is powder snow cold (depending on where you live the colder temps might be more or less relevant)

Figure out some similar things for yourself, and it’ll be relatively easy to think along lines like “That walk was a bit further than my way to work, so it’s probably about 4km”, or “that box was heavy, but far from 100 kg, so it’s maybe around 30 kg.”

Bonus points if you try some guessing like that and double check afterwards to tune in your feeling for different measurements.

I think you’re missing my point: I opened by saying that I definitely believe the world is deterministic. I then went on to problematise the extremely unpredictable nature of the human mind. To the point where an immeasurable amount of historical input goes into determining what number I will say if you ask me to think of one.

Then, I used the argument of a chaotic system to reconcile the determinism of the universe with the apparent impossibility of predicting another persons next thought. A highly chaotic system can be deterministic but still remain functionally unpredictable.

Finally, I floated the idea that what we interpret as free will is in fact our mind justifying the outcome of a highly chaotic process after the fact. I seem to remember there was some research on split-brain patients regarding this.

By and large, I agree with you: I cannot see how free will fits into a deterministic universe. I still want to make some points for the case that there is some form of free will.

Think about scratching your nose right now, and decide whether or not to do it. It’s banal, but I can’t help being convinced by that simple act that I do have some form of choice. I can’t fathom how someone, even given a perfect model of every cell in my body, could predict whether or not I will scratch my nose within the next minute.

This brings up the second point: We don’t need to invoke quantum mechanics to get large-scale uncertainty. It’s enough to assume that our mind is a complex, chaotic system. In that case, minute changes in initial conditions or input stimuli can massively change the state of our mind only a short time later. This allows for our mind to be deterministic but functionally impossible to predict (if immeasurably small changes in conditions can cascade to large changes in outcome).

I seem to remember reading that what we interpret as free will is usually our mind justifying our actions after the fact, which would fit well with the “chaotic but deterministic” theory.

EXACTLY! I can’t believe that I’ve basically forgotten how the function of “social media” at a point in the not-too-distant past was actually to help real people stay in touch and organise real social events… how did we even end up where we are now? There was a golden age for a couple years where stuff like facebook brought a net positive to the world. Just makes me sad to think about where we ended up…

Tbh, to me, a replacement for facebook is what I’m looking most for. I used to use facebook a lot to organise stuff with different friend-groups, and now that most people don’t ever use it, that’s a lot harder.

Facebook was the de-facto primary communication channel for organising events or coordinating hobby groups. It honestly makes me sad that they broke it to the point where I have a hard time inviting old friends that live out of town to a summer party or something. Likewise, I have a hard time being invited to stuff because I practically never check facebook.

Friendica may take over facebooks role at some point, but it’s nowhere close yet. I made an account just to be on there for if/when it starts taking off. I hope the gap is filled sooner rather than later.

There’s a reasonable probability that I’ll be heavily downvoted for this, but it’s my two cents, so here I go. For clarity, I’ll in the following use “male” and “female” to refer to biological groups identified by their reproductive organs (by far most people can clearly be identified as one or the other), and “man” and “women” to refer to groups of people that identify as such.

Sex (the action) is pretty fundamentally tied to your reproductive organs. As such, I think it makes most sense to define “straight” vs. “bi” vs. “gay” in terms of sex (the attribute). I would say that a male that is exclusively attracted to females is “straight”, while a male that is exclusively attracted to women “bi with a strong preference for women”, and that a male that is exclusively attracted to males is “gay”.

My reasoning here is twofold: First, a male that is attracted to women can have a range for how “female presenting” the woman has to be before they are interested. Some will only consider women that have gone through surgery and full hormonal therapy attractive, while others will find women without any surgery or hormone therapy attractive. This brings up the second point: A lot of sexuality becomes a lot easier to talk about (and de-stigmatize) if we accept that sexuality is a continuous spectrum. If we accept that, it makes sense to me to use one word for each extreme, and a more fluid language for the bulk of the spectrum. I know plenty of bi people that have more or less strong preferences towards one side of the spectrum, and some that are completely agnostic. I think a lot of stigma can be removed if we’re more open to people being “just slightly bi”, while we can keep the language clear by reserving “straight” and “gay” for the two extremes.

Finally, if we use “straight” to refer to e.g. males that are exclusively attracted to women, we open an unnecessary can of worms regarding males that are attracted to people who identify as women, but don’t present as female. In short: Sex (act) is fundamentally tied to sex (attribute), so it makes sense to me to define sexuality in terms of sex, rather than gender.

I’m going to be honest here: I approve of your proposal. At the same time, I live in a European country with conscription that borders russia. I don’t think you understand how reliant Europe has become on the US MIC. Even in Norway, where we have Nammo and Kongsberg, we are nowhere near being able to supply a significant force with arms.

In the 90’s, Norway could mobilise and arm ≈500 000 soldiers within a couple of days. Today that number is probably < 50 000. Building production lines takes time.

In the next election (this autumn) my vote is going to the party that takes up-arming the most seriously.

China would have to do a whole lot more than just “not support russia”. As a starter, they’d need to start being transparent, honest, and not censor the ever loving shit out of all information from their country. Then they could stop genociding minorities.

I seem to remember that what the EU did to good effect last time this asshat was president was to place extremely directed tariffs/taxes on specific goods from Trump-friendly areas. Essentially saying “we’re going to toll oranges from this specific county in that specific swing state in order to drive a couple specific producers out of business”, and then did that across the country. The advantage being that WTO agreements allow you to answer tariffs dollar-for-dollar, so you can respond to wide-reaching tolls that amount to X USD (e.g. tolls on the entire European aluminium industry) with extremely hard-hitting tolls on very specific producers.

We should be doing that again. Don’t touch the wider American population, but put all our weight into hitting hard against cornerstone businesses in pro-trump counties. Make them regret voting this guy in thinking it would better their economy.

Not running any LLMs, but I do a lot of mathematical modelling, and my 32 GB RAM, M1 Pro MacBook is compiling code and crunching numbers like an absolute champ! After about a year, most of my colleagues ditched their old laptops for a MacBook themselves after just noticing that my machine out-performed theirs every day, and that it saved me a bunch of time day-to-day.

Of course, be a bit careful when buying one: Apple cranks up the price like hell if you start specing out the machine a lot. Especially for RAM.

Removed by mod

(…) what you said can be construed as offensive.

So what? You have a personal responsibility for being offended. It’s not everybody else’s job to walk on eggshells to avoid offending you. If you go looking for things people have said that can offend you, you’re gonna have a shitty time.

Try making an effort to interpret people in the best possible way, and you’ll have a much better time, with much fewer people being perceived as “going after you”.

I definitely think the ramping up is going far too slowly, and as such it isn’t strange that there are shortages.

This is a huge war- the largest land war since WWII. All of NATO is still operating on a peace-time economy, so ramping up production to the levels required to support a 500 k - 1 mill. strong army like the Ukrainians is taking far too long.

However, as far as I can tell, production in Europe is only heading one way: Up. Not only that, Russia is operating in a war economy, which is, more or less by definition, unsustainable in the long run. Europe has the economic capacity to double its production, and maintain it indefinitely. I just think we should prioritise more heavily, and scale up more quickly.

It seems to me like most European countries see supplying equipment to destroy the Russian army in Ukraine as preferable to destroying the Russian army on their own soil. Although I do hope Germany picks up the pace rather than reduces it.

However, even without Germany, there are plenty of other European countries that will be capable of buying truckloads of equipment from German manufacturers.

There have been major investments in the European military industry the past years. Europe is ramping up its production. With new factories in place, it makes no sense for Europe to start cutting down on production- that would mean huge sums have been spent to build factories that aren’t used.

Also, a bunch of countries have already paid for huge orders of equipment that will keep flowing for the next several years. Even if no new investments are made, there will be a substantial flow of weapons from European manufacturers.

That’s not even mentioning that Europe has finally understood that we need to be able to stand on our own feet militarily, because we can’t trust that the US will actually honor the NATO pact if shit hits the fan.

Accounting for purchasing power parity, the US economy is about 1.1x the size of the EU, and the population of the EU is about 1.5x that of the US. So it’s not like Europe doesn’t have the capacity to massively scale up its military power.

Remember that up until 80 years ago, the European militaries were by far the most powerful in the world.

That’s a lot like how other NATO countries operate as well. But my impression was that the American national guard units were professional full-time units, is that not the case?

Out Norwegian equivalent (the Home Guard) consists of civilians (i.e. people with normal jobs) that train a number of times a year, some of which have their equipment at home so that they’re ready to deploy on short notice. They have some coordinated training with the army, and are intended to function as a kind of “local force” in their region, with in-depth knowledge about local conditions that the ordinary army doesn’t have.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe the peace time professional militaries of most democratic European countries would be dwarfed by the number of people those countries would be able to mobilise in a war time situation.

In the case of Norway, we have a standing army of some 20-30 k soldiers, with a reserve (i.e. peace time civilians with ordinary jobs that have pre-set places to meet up in the case of a conflict) of some 50-70 k soldiers. If shit hits the fan, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could get another 100-200 k to volunteer (at the peak of the cold war I believe we had standing army + reserve of some 500 k). The issue is that we are nowhere close to being able to equip that many soldiers.

That’s just Norway, one of the smallest populations in Europe, and we would likely be able to field 100 k + soldiers within a week or two, with another 100 k following up in the next months, given that we have the equipment for it.

Call me naive, but I honestly believe that people in democratic countries would be willing to enlist if there is a real threat of an autocratic regime invading at taking over. Given that we have sufficient numbers of well trained soldiers to hold out the initial weeks/months and train those mobilised, and sufficient equipment to give the mobilised, I hope that we would be able to put a solid force on its feet relatively quickly.

Also, just the sheer population of Europe (≈ 450 million in the EU) is so much larger that e.g. Russia (≈ 150 million) that we should collectively be able to field several million soldiers as long as we have enough equipment for it, and enough trained personell to train the mobilised. So I definitely think it’s reasonable to focus on building equipment stockpiles in peace time, rather than having huge standing armies.