Political Discussion

The leak about Giuliani on Masked Singer truly shocks me. Maybe it shouldn't. But it does. Fox allowing Rudes to start his rehabilitation tour on a cutesy karaoke show WHILE he's under active investigation for his role in subverting American democracy is a new low. Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars was capital-B Bad, but this is tough to comprehend.
I mean, they kept Thicke on board even after Ratajkowski's memoir came out about the Blurred Lines video. I'm not at all surprised that this happened.

I want to give props to Jeong and Thicke for walking out, but it just feels like Show Drama™.
 
The leak about Giuliani on Masked Singer truly shocks me. Maybe it shouldn't. But it does. Fox allowing Rudes to start his rehabilitation tour on a cutesy karaoke show WHILE he's under active investigation for his role in subverting American democracy is a new low. Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars was capital-B Bad, but this is tough to comprehend.
Reality TV worked for Trump...
 
Reality TV worked for Trump...

How I fucking hate that festival of vacant used car salespeople with oversized egos that is The Apprentice. It’s just so toxic in every way. And I’ve not even seen the US edition with the fart fella.
 
Last edited:
I mean, they kept Thicke on board even after Ratajkowski's memoir came out about the Blurred Lines video.
For sure. It's foul. But it's a type of foul that doesn't surprise me at all.

It's not the grossness or the wrongness with Rudy, for me. It's the audacity. The absolute shamelessness. He's not just another disgusting crony from "the other side" (never forget this show also had Sarah Palin on as a contestant). He's a treasonous pig. And a stunt like this asks a) audiences to enjoy him before they even know who's under the mask, and b) fuckin' Ken Jeong and Jenny McCarthy to process & respond to the reveal on camera. It's a perfect manipulation of a viewing audience designed to be pandered to.
 
We've all taken clingy dumps, I'm sure, but nowhere near as public as this one.

I just can’t believe that he baselessly, and in public, blamed the leader of the opposition for failing to prosecute one of the most prolific celebrity child abusers that had ever existed. Even mentioning that man’s name in parliament is shocking. And then he’s trying to stand over it and never mind not apologising he hasn’t even attempted to row it back. The mind boggles. And it’s cost him probably his most able and loyal advisor today. The other three will be replaced by identikit Tory men so there’s less damage there.
 
Last edited:
I just can’t believe that he baselessly, and in public, blamed the leader of the opposition for failing to prosecute one of the most prolific celebrity child abusers that had ever existed. Even mentioning that man’s name in parliament is shocking. And then he’s trying to stand over it and never mind not apologising he hasn’t even attempted to row it back. The mind boggles. And it’s cost him probably his most able and loyal advisor today. The other three will be replaced by identikit Tory men do there’s less damage there.

Yeah, I thought the past week or so had already been baffling enough, but this one really takes the cake. Especially that he remains so indignant in the wake of losing Mirza! If he's gone so far as to drive her away (and good on her for leaving, by the way) how does he even have anything or anybody left?! It's astounding.
 
I just can’t believe that he baselessly, and in public, blamed the leader of the opposition for failing to prosecute one of the most prolific celebrity child abusers that had ever existed. Even mentioning that man’s name in parliament is shocking. And then he’s trying to stand over it and never mind not apologising he hasn’t even attempted to row it back. The mind boggles. And it’s cost him probably his most able and loyal advisor today. The other three will be replaced by identikit Tory men do there’s less damage there.

It's quite nice to see the word “scurrilous” being bandied about so much, at least!
 
The price of housing has skyrocketed in Massachusetts over the past few decades and has even continued during the pandemic because people are moving from Boston to the suburbs.

The building of apartments is a almost non existent in posh suburb towns and the towns going on a building boom, like Salem isn't building anything that could be remotely considered affordable. In any of the new apartment complex that I have seen go up since moving to Salem, there hasn't been a single one I could afford a 1 bedroom apartment in.

And here is why that is happening. In Massachusetts as I have mentioned before in this thread, a super majority vote of the board is needed to approve zoning for the construction of any apartment complex as required by Massachusetts state law. The state law also requires a supermajority to change.

Thus a very loud and vocal minority are essentially able to block everything.

The vocal few don't want to change community dynamics, are afraid crime will come to their community and are worried about reductions to their property values.

In the case of posh suburb towns that only have single family homes, they don't want to bring in apartments because that will bring in that "riff raff".

In the case of communities like Salem that have tons of apartments, only ultra high end luxury apartment complex are being put up. Anything that is billed as affordable or working class gets blocked because the community is worried about increased crime and changing community dynamics.

In both scenarios, a reduction in property values is a big concern.

Governor Baker has a plan to get these towns to build apartments. It's pretty much telling them you have to build apartments or pay up kind of shake down.


This is virtually all of Eastern Massachusetts / the Boston suburbs included in this new public transit zoning. The entire MBTA area.
What governor baker is telling towns is you need to build X amount of apartment complex or you need to pay the MBTA more money and you may lose state grants.

This is something that does not sit well with people in posh communities who wouldn't ever be caught dead using public transportation. There is a lot a screaming and finger pointing going on and protests outside of Governor Baker's mansion over this already.

Many of these communities think it's an overreach of the state to take more of their money if they don't build apartments.


Could this idea actually work? Or will these communities just pay higher taxes to avoid building apartments. Or will the building trend in Salem continue where anything that does get built is not affordable and does nothing to solve the "affordability crisis" the state is facing.

What is everyones thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
I remember an article last year about assault weapons mounted on the back of robot dogs used by the military.

Really scary stuff if you come to think about it.

Which brings up a good point I saw in an article yesterday. Is remote warfare moral?

Should a country send drones and robot dogs to kill targets instead of people?
 
Is remote warfare moral?

Should a country send drones and robot dogs to kill targets instead of people?
I guess it depends what you mean by "remote" and "drones"? (and I'll put aside bigger questions on the morality of warfare, in general)

Current "remote" warfare - that is, airborne assets - is not autonomous and is still controlled by humans (it's a big reason why there was a push w/in the military to stop using the word "drone" and switch to the term "remotely-piloted" - they convey different things).

Things like target vetting and validation are still accomplished. ROEs and LOAC are observed (whether or not one agrees with them as they exist is a different matter). Terminal control is exercised by a human.

So, a person in a cockpit 20K feet up releasing munitions and a person thousands of miles a way on the ground is a matter of degrees of separation. You could argue that all of that is "remote". Heck, a person on the ground operating a rocket launcher that, in some cases, can fire on targets 80+ miles away....I'd argue that is remote in so much that it turns a human target into a feature on a display.

But drones....that is different than remote. Are you asking about a totally autonomous kill chain? AI that is given a set of parameters in which it can engage and kill? Or human control that provides command-and-control and at some point relinquishes execution to a drone? I mean, if you strap some shoulder cannons on a robot dog and give it a swath of land to patrol and engage anything it comes across with no mediation in that process by a human....well, yea that becomes Black Mirror and I'd argue is foundationally flawed. Although, I could imagine someone else taking another view whereas, say you set up a No Man's Land and littered it with these patrolling robodogs. And it was made clear that anyone entering there could be indiscriminately attacked. I'd say there is a current, less sophisticated analog in how we mine fields. Mines don't care what side you're on - they're tools that kill. Robodogs, drones, whatever - they'll be advancements on ways in which we already like to kill one another and I guess we've already answered some of those baseline questions of what's morally acceptable as a species.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends what you mean by "remote" and "drones"? (and I'll put aside bigger questions on the morality of warfare, in general)

Current "remote" warfare - that is, airborne assets - is not autonomous and is still controlled by humans (it's a big reason why their was a push w/in the military to stop using the word "drone" and switch to the term "remotely-piloted" - they convey different things).

Things like target vetting and validation are still accomplished. ROEs and LOAC are observed (whether or not one agrees with them as they exist is a different matter). Terminal control is exercised by a human.

So, a person in a cockpit 20K feet up releasing munitions and a person thousands of miles a way on the ground is a matter of degrees of separation. You could argue that all of that is "remote". Heck, a person on the ground operating a rocket launcher that, in some cases, can fire on targets 80+ miles away....I'd argue that is remote in so much that it turns a human target into a feature on a display.

But drones....that is different than remote. Are you asking about a totally autonomous kill chain? AI that is given a set of parameters in which it can engage and kill? Or human control that provides command-and-control and at some point relinquishes execution to a drone? I mean, if you strap some shoulder cannons on a robot dog and give it a swath of land to patrol and engage anything it comes across with no mediation in that process by a human....well, yea that becomes Black Mirror and I'd argue is foundationally flawed. Although, I could imagine someone else taking another view whereas, say you set up a No Man's Land and littered it with these patrolling robodogs. And it was made clear that anyone entering there could be indiscriminately attacked. I'd say there is a current, less sophisticated analog in how we mine fields. Mines don't care what side you're on - they're tools that kill. Robodogs, drones, whatever - in ways they'll be advancements on ways in which we already like to kill one another and I guess we've already answered some of those baseline questions of what's morally acceptable as a species.


Im not sure if either remote or fully automated warfare is more moral than the other. I can see problems with both. I think we would have to have some kind of comparison, but the closest we have are the clone wars. And I do t think the Star Wars universe is a good apples to apples comparison to real life.
 
You mean they use security robots at construction sites?
These dogs are typically carrying laser scanners or mechanical system layout tools. I recently saw a wall layout bot that was more like wall-e without arms that literally drew the wall plans onto the slab. Basically a rolling plotter at full scale print size.
 
Im not sure if either remote or fully automated warfare is more moral than the other. I can see problems with both. I think we would have to have some kind of comparison, but the closest we have are the clone wars. And I do t think the Star Wars universe is a good apples to apples comparison to real life.
I guess the difference I was trying to get at between remote and automated is decision-making.

So, remote operations, as they exist, have the same level of control as traditional capabilities. They only change where that decision-maker is located (a cockpit overhead vs a seat geographically separated).

But the same target analysis (vetting, validation, nomination, prioritization) and collateral damage estimates are accomplished.

As I see it, remote delivery platforms have no difference in human control than more traditional stand-off munitions. The difference is really just in proximity to what you're killing. Same could be said for a person with a sword vs a rifle with 100m or so difference in proximity vs a short range missile vs a ballistic missile vs a remote aircraft. But in all these instances there is a human factor. Again, this isn't addressing or changing any foundational questions about how we wage war and kill people.

Automation would upend those critical human decisions (and for worse or maybe better depending on how you see human ability to judge life and death).
 
Last edited:
I guess the difference I was trying to get at between remote and automated is decision-making.

So, remote operations, as they exist, have the same level of control as traditional capabilities. They only change where that decision-maker is located (a cockpit overhead vs a seat geographically separated).

But the same target analysis (vetting, validation, nomination, prioritization) and collateral damage estimates are accomplished.

As I see it, remote delivery platforms have no difference in human control than more traditional stand-off munitions. The difference is really just in proximity to what you're killing. Same could be said for a person with a sword vs a rifle with 100m or so difference in proximity vs a shirt range missile vs a ballistic missile vs a remote aircraft. But in all these instances there is a human factor. Again, this isn't addressing or changing any foundational questions about how we wage war and kill people.

Automation would upend those critical human decisions (and for worse or maybe better on how you see human ability to judge life and death).


This was exactly my first though as well, But then I thought about how automation has happens in policing. All the algorithms are written my humans and those algorithms are affected by human biases. Would we see that if warfare was fully automated? Maybe.
 
These dogs are typically carrying laser scanners or mechanical system layout tools. I recently saw a wall layout bot that was more like wall-e without arms that literally drew the wall plans onto the slab. Basically a rolling plotter at full scale print size.


I mean…do they have one that can do all my chores.
 
Back
Top