= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
February 2015 Media Thread
This is the monthly thread for posting media of various types that you've found that you enjoy. Post what you're reading, listening to, watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing! To see previous recommendations, check out the older threads.
Rules:
- Please avoid downvoting recommendations just because you don't personally like the recommended material; remember that liking is a two-place word. If you can point out a specific flaw in a person's recommendation, consider posting a comment to that effect.
- If you want to post something that (you know) has been recommended before, but have another recommendation to add, please link to the original, so that the reader has both recommendations.
- Please post only under one of the already created subthreads, and never directly under the parent media thread.
- Use the "Other Media" thread if you believe the piece of media you want to discuss doesn't fit under any of the established categories.
- Use the "Meta" thread if you want to discuss about the monthly media thread itself (e.g. to propose adding/removing/splitting/merging subthreads, or to discuss the type of content properly belonging to each subthread) or for any other question or issue you may have about the thread or the rules.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (138)
Meta Thread
Question: Does it make sense to post in these threads "I read X, don't bother for the following reasons" or should we only restrict to recommendations of what to read/listen/watch?
Warnings would make sense to me if the work is marketed or recommended in ways which would make rationalists likely to pick it up.
IMO counterrecommendations have their value too, especially if the reasons for such are explained. So, where I'm concerned, go right ahead
Other Media Thread
The Raccoon Princess and the Fox Prince: A Bayesian Parable
Looks pretty good, and perhaps they can team up with whoever was developing the Bayes game here.
However, there's an unsupported assumption here: we don't know that raccoons and fox have the same crime rate. Without data, I'd say that the larger animals probably have a larger rate, so it shifts more in that direction.
Podcasts Thread
BBC Inside Health: Drug Driving; End of Life Care; Smart Drugs, also available as mp3. The smart drugs piece starts at 16m 58s.
Mostly I mention it as mainstream(ish) coverage of the topic, which I though note worthy.
Music Thread
To life!
Misc:
Touhou:
Doujin:
Kantai Collection:
Vocaloid:
Stuff I've been listening to lately
TV and Movies (Live Action) Thread
I recently watched the first season of the show Homeland and really liked it. The drama and action were good, but what I liked in particular is that the situations had some moral depth to them, and it isn't perfectly clear who to like/what to root for. I don't want to give anything away, but basically the story line revolves around a recently rescued POW who may have been "turned". If you've seen the show and want to talk about it, message me!
If you enjoyed Breaking Bad, try Fargo. The two are best TV shows I watched in years and in my mind have a certain common flavor.
I actually watched a few episodes of Breaking Bad and didn't love it. I didn't find it that exciting and couldn't help but be skeptical that the storyline could last so many seasons, so I stopped watching. I know that everyone loves Breaking Bad though; this is just my one data point. I'm trying not to get caught up in too much TV, but I'll keep Fargo in mind.
It's not allowed to not like Breaking Bad.
I know quite a lot of people who didn't, all I'm saying if you do, chances are you might like Fargo as well.
(If on the other hand you preferred The Wire, then you should try True Detective.)
If you are reading this, Ex Machina is almost certainly a film you would be interested in watching.
ETA: some elaboration - this is a film about artificial intelligence. It's quite smartly done, and is probably the most intelligent cinematic treatment of LW-flavoured AI concepts released to date. It won't blow your mind, and it's not a cinematic masterpiece, but it might just set the tone for future popular discussion on the subject.
I highly recommend Wolf Hall, both as entertainment and as rationality material. Like any adaptation, it loses something from the books, but it is extremely well written and acted, which makes up for some of that.
TV and Movies (Animation) Thread
Anime:
Started watching Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit.
Set during an AU feudal Japan (and if we ever tire of AU feudal Japan, you'll know that the upload you have of paper machine is not genuine), Moribito tells the story of the epic-level bodyguard Balsa and her quest to save the life of the Emperor's second son, Chagum, who has been possessed by the egg of a water spirit.
So far, Balsa is an exceptional strategist with a wide utilitarian streak. She's slightly reminiscent of Mokoto Kusanagi (and is animated by Production I.G). Chagum is slightly whiny but is growing on me. We often moan about the lack of strong female leads in anime, but hopefully Moribito continues to break the mould.
There's also some underlying Mononoke-esque humans vs. nature going on, so if you like that, you'll probably like this too.
Quarterly groupwatched anime batch:
Rage of Bahamut Genesis: Much better than it had any right to be; a lot of fun, plenty of flashy visual effects (perhaps too flashy in the last couple of episodes, but even so). Not something with any real depth or ambition; nothing the genre hasn't seen before (though it's been a while since I saw a protagonist with this particular level of... not exactly evil, but cowardice and shadiness - and the snarky zombie sorcerer is very fun). But I enjoyed it from start to finish - last month ISTR someone was unhappy with the gods and demons at the end, but that's de rigeur for the genre and the cast needed new factors IMO.
Psycho-Pass 2: Nowhere near the quality of the original; very inconsistent pacing, too little characterization, too heavy-handed with the ultraviolence, gaping plot holes. I still enjoyed it, but on a Guilty Crown level where I sat back and let the craziness play out.
Nobunaga Concerto: managed to keep a simple premise interesting throughout its run, along with plenty of basic comedy staples and a surprisingly good ending theme. Not one for the ages, but diverting enough if you can put up with the very basic animation.
Mushishi (first series): very much a work of art, very understated, with real moral ambiguity at times. But I grew frustrated with the way the world made no sense (or rather, followed storytelling logic rather than any internal logic of its own) and the very strictly episodic nature of the show; nothing ever changes or matters to characters we care about. I don't think I'll be watching any more.
Amagi Brilliant Park: plenty of good parts (and KyoAni production values), but never manages to fit them together into a decent whole. The comedy works well, but the dramatic plot manages to be both horribly forced and borderline-irrelevant. The overarching plot makes very little sense, and virtually disappears for the middle of the series. Even with all its flaws I can't call it a bad show, because it was still fun to watch, but it could have been so much better.
Fiction Books Thread
Currently reading Annie Bellet's "The 20-Sided Sorceress" series which is an urban fantasy setting where the main character grew up thinking of magic in terms of Dungeons and Dragons and uses a D20 talisman to focus her magic. Not too surprisingly it is full of geek-culture references. Overall, amusing.
Read Christopher Nuttall's "Schooled in Magic" series. I'd describe it as HPMoR but with a main character who is a) slightly more mature and b) not nearly as smart or educated. Overall, while I've had a mixed view of a lot of Nuttall's other works I have a high opinion of this one.
Just read Brandon Sanderson's "Firefight" which is the sequel to Steelheart. Sanderson is as amazing as usual. The books are a very novel take on the idea of superpowers.
Tl;dr of my post: If you liked Steelheart, I heavily recommend reading Worm.
Long version: So, Sanderson is in my top 5 favorite authors, I think almost every book of his is amazing, and I loved Steelheart.
But shortly after reading it, I started reading the (now finished) online web serial Worm (from Yudkowsky's recommendation on HPMOR). It has a very similar premise to Steelheart, at least initially.
And let's just say, Worm makes Steelheart look terrible in comparison. Worm is just so much better.
Again, I'm a huge fan of Sanderson, and I still like the Steelheart series, but I now read it and think to myself that it's just not even close to realistic, Worm is how people with powers would actually behave.
Seriously, read Worm. And if you happen to read this comment and not have read Sanderson, read his books too (I would start with the Mistborn trilogy, possibly the best trilogy of all time).
Have you read Firefight? It does a good job of pointing out why people with powers in Steelheart act how they do. (I haven't read Worm but it is on my reading list.)
It's less the "why do they act that way", more "if you had this superpower, what kind of really weird but powerful stuff could you do with it".
Worm is full of people using superpowers in really inventive ways, in a way that Steelheart/Firefight aren't.
I tried listening to The Quantum Thief, but gave up after an hour or so. I found it bland and somewhat annoying.
I don't know why you would listen to a SF novel... I enjoyed The Quantum Thief a lot - the start in the Dilemma Prison was interesting, and I loved the worldbuilding of the Oubliette.
Do you listen to Audiobooks at all? Are you only specifically against SF as an Audiobook?
I ask because I'm a huge fan of Audiobooks, but I've long believed that SF (and fantasy) are both particularly hard to like in Audiobook format. Non-fiction is by far better.
(I do still listen to some SF/Fantasy on Audiobooks, but it's usually authors I already know, or in worlds I already know).
I am against audiobooks in general for myself due to my particular circumstances so my direct experience is limited, but it seems to me that SF/fantasy may not work for most people as audiobooks since they trade so heavily on immersive flavor and world-building (particularly The Quantum Thief, which is in the 'explain nothing and make readers figure everything out from context' school of hard SF), which would be impeded by the slowness of audio and the intrusion of someone's voice.
FYI, you're mostly right, at least based on my experience. I tend to have a much harder time listening to Audiobooks of SF/fantasy, and a harder time listening to any fiction vs. non-fiction.
I also have a much easier time listening to SF/Fantasy when it's in a setting I already know (e.g. sequels, books I've read before, etc). Also easier to listen to books from authors I read a lot (but that may be true in general, come to think of it).
I still highly recommend anyone who can to listen to Audiobooks, at least of non-fiction, as one of the best and easiest hacks around.
Listening to the third book in The First Law trilogy. I really like the characters and their internal narrative, as well as the writing style. The pace is pretty slow, but I never found it boring, happy to follow the characters' thoughts and actions. Inquisitor Glokta is probably my favorite, because of his dry wit and cynicism, with just a pinch of humanity.
Nonfiction Books Thread
Currently reading Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" so far the book has two upshots: nationalism makes people really irrational. No, you think you already know that, but you don't realize how far it can go. No, more irrational than that. Second, it is really easy for things to spiral out of control. Reading it has made me strongly update to the probability that there will be a large-scale war in the next few years, and in general that war might be a major aspect of the Great Filter. A relevant, somewhat critical review of the book is here.
Studying WWI has done the same for me.
Could you two go into some specifics of what you're expecting and why?
Essentially that large-scale, complicated alliances can result in small scale wars unexpectedly spiraling out of control. In the case of WWI there were multiple small conflagrations in the Balkans before WWI but it then took just the right one to set it off. In a similar vein, one wouldn't be surprised if one the similar small conflagrations around Russia like are currently happening leads to a Russia v. NATO war with little warning. Similarly, one could expect a similar situation in the Pacific given the many border conflicts there.
I think Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire and is going to keep taking more territory until he encounters serious resistance, and this resistance could easily turn into a war in which nuclear weapons are used. Putin might rationally calculate that if he tried to conquer Finland (which used to be part of the Czarist Empire) there is only a 10% chance that the U.S. would put up serious resistance, and this was a gamble he would be willing to take. But if the U.S. did decide to fight it would easily beat back Russia if the war stayed conventional, and this might cause Putin to use atomic weapons.
Putin probably calculates that Obama is much less likely to use military force against him than the next U.S. President will be, so we might be entering a period of great danger.
The rationale for claiming the parts of Ukraine was much stronger than for Finland. Russians account for 17% of the population of Ukraine, while Russians account for 1.1% of residents of Finland. The Finns won independence from Russia via war and have not been in the same country as Russia for almost a century, while Ukraine's territory gained from Russia was by the stroke of Kruschev's pen as a bureacratic transfer of low significance as long as both Russia and Ukraine were parts of the Soviet Union. Also, Ukraine is culturally very close to Russia, even having a common language-base, which Finland does not. Russia has only been not in the same country as Crimea since the fall of the Soviet Union. So, the general causes are much weaker.
Ukraine was extremely unstable before Russia moved in, with a strong geographical split between areas with protests in favor of closer ties to the west and Russia. This seems unlikely to recur in FInland. Without the underlying weakness, the proximate excuse is gone.
You are right in terms of moral rationale, but what I think will matter to Putin are the costs and benefits to him of an invasion. Finding a proximate excuse will be easy, especially for a former KGB agent.
The costs will be higher and the benefits lower based on the (lack of) rationale. Forcing the Finns into Russia will be very bad for everyone involved even if successful, and failure is obviously worse for him.
???
Moved in with troops, yes. Russia had done political maneuvering so as to destabilize it, I grant.
They have much less traction to pull the same sorts of political maneuvers in Finland.
I am just trying to understand what timeline you had in mind. Did you mean before Yanukovich scuttled EU integration?
After. Before then, well, it wasn't rock solid, but it wasn't, so far as I know, abnormally unstable. Yes, Putin brought that about.
And NATO pushing up to the borders of Russia isn't considered an aggressive move on the part of the USA, because ... ?
I'm not trying to defend his annexation of the Crimea but "trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire" isn't what I think his motivations are when I can look at a map like this, and recall the Georgian conflict was itself sparked in part by aspirations of that country to join NATO. Americans would feel threatened if say, Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact, no?
Part of the reason Putin wants a bigger empire is undoubtedly to gain some protection against future aggression. I totally agree with you that the U.S. has acted to weaken Russia.
Because it wasn't NATO that "pushed up to the borders of Russia" it was the Eastern European countries that fled from Russia into NATO. Not a single NATO tank had to streamroll into those Eastern European countries for them to join . You'll note that none of those nations that joined NATO needed to be invaded and military occupied by NATO -- unlike what Russia is doing now, and unlike what Warsaw Pact did in the past.
Because if any of those countries ask to leave NATO, NATO will leave. However Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova are asking Russia to leave, and Russia isn't leaving.
Because the sovereign and independent Eastern European nations wanted to become part of NATO, and NATO tanks didn't need to force itself on a single nation, it was invited( a single country, nor change the borders, unlike Russia's military occupation of portions of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
Because a NATO country like Poland isn't the one attempting to annex the western portions of Ukraine or Belarus or Russia.
Because when Greece has been recently openly allying itself with Russia, I don't see NATO troops from Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.
Yay, for simple answers to simple questions.
Yes, America also often used military imperialism in its attempt to stop Latin American countries from allying themselves with the Soviet Union, (e.g. the invasion at the Bay of Pigs).
So?
I'm not sure your average Serb would agree ...
No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy.
I'll restate what I said before - I'm not defending Putin's regime as such. It's tyrannical and corrupt and no sane person would die defending that hill. Just that Russia's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Yes, the Eastern Euro countries (mostly) joined NATO of their own free will (more accurately, they had little alternative either way with Russia being dead in the water through the 90s). What of it? The fact remains there's an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia's doorstep, and allied groups like the EU pushing into historically-Russian territories. They're understandably afraid of the Germans pushing east of the Vistula - after all, it didn't end well the last two times.
"Rebuilding the Soviet Empire" is exactly the kind of propagandistic slogan that contributes to crises in the first place - viewing your enemy as some kind of inscrutable, uncompromisingly aggressive monster rather than a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses.
I opposed NATO's action in Kosovo as an imperialist action in support of Albanian imperialism -- but this has nothing to do with NATO's expansion eastwards any more than its intervention against Afghanistan does. NATO's expansion eastwards was an action of the Eastern European countries fleeing westwards, being rightfully afraid of Russian imperialism.
Know what? I can't remain civil in this discussion, if you're comparing Greece being loaned money with extremely low interests as being the same thing as Ukraine being militarily conquered by Russia and many thousands of its people getting killed.
So I'm tapping out. Enjoy your "understanding" of the so called defensive attitude of Russia as one by one it conquers nations that never once threatened anyone. On my part I'll keep denouncing Russia neoHitleric imperialism, and its vile policies.
Everyone's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Perfectly, universally, and therefore uselessly.
One of the reasons to join NATO was that Russia (Soviet Union) had a history of reverting political changes in Eastern Europe; see Prague Spring. Given this history, a political change from communism to democracy seemed half-assed without also joining NATO, because it seemed like a question of time until someone in Russia decides "okay guys, your political regime will now change to this" and send tanks to enforce the decision.
It felt like without NATO, the future of Eastern Europe would be decided in two steps. 1) Russia will decide what political regime it wants, which may take a few years, but when the decision is made, then 2) the tanks will come and enforce the same regime in other countries. So, unless you agree that this is how the political regime in your country should be decided, the only safe alternative is to join NATO.
An average Serb or an average Yugoslav..? :-P
I don't think the desire to maintain a little Balkan empire counts here.
I don't think so. Do tell, what Russia is defending against? And is the threat to Russia or to Mr.Putin's thoroughly corrupt state?
Show me that coalition and show me how is it "anti-Russian".
I am sorry, this passed into the realm of unadulterated bullshit. So, right now, in the XXI century Russia is "concerned for its survival"? A country of "few natural defenses" that was last conquered by Genghis Khan?
You are looking at this from a moral viewpoint. The fact that many of Russia's neighbors would rather militarily associate with the U.S. than Russia is a cause of great insecurity for Russia and probably a big part of the reason Putin would like to gain military control of more territory. Putin would have less to worry about if the eastern European nations in NATO joined because they were forced to because then these countries would be weaker U.S. allies.
Clearly Aris has moral sentiments about the matter (who would not?), but he is presenting observable facts, such as who is sending men and materiel and who is not.
If they were forced to, that would imply a US more able and willing to force them, which cancels that out.
Putin clearly intends to exert all the pressure and take all the opportunities that he can to expand Russia's sphere of influence indefinitely, as did the former USSR. All else is tactics. As you said:
Finland is an EU country. Even if the US doesn't care about defending EU territory the EU does.
But would the EU do anything, especially if the Greeks decide to veto everything if they are not given a bailout?
Military is not commanded via the EU commission but by individual member states. There nothing to veto. Finish citizens have free movement via the EU. That means average people know more Finish people than Ukranians and actually care about defending Finland.
Ukraine is for political purposes like a third world country. People far away that nobody deeply cares about.
It's worth looking at innerpolitical issures. I don't think German or France politicians would get away in their own countries with not defending Finland. On the other hand Germans who already don't want to pay for the Greece bailout, don't want to bailout the Ukraine and have substantial resources spent over there.
From Putins perspective the Ukraine conflict made him popular at home, I don't think starting an additional conflict in Finland would help Putin inside of Russian politics.
Russia invades Finland. Germany announces it's going to send lots of troops to Finland to fight against the Russians. Putin announces that if Germany does this he will drop an atomic bomb on Berlin. Germany then backs down.
Since Germany doesn't have atomic weapons, it can't credibly threaten Russia absent Russia invading Germany.
Russia doesn't even invade the East-Ukraine as far as Russian media is concerned. It's done by plausible deniable locals supported by Russian citizens on vacation.
Military action can be done without announcing it and a tanks that move into NATO or EU territory will likely produce an immediate military response within less than an hour.
NATO doesn't send tanks to clear cities in East Ukraine that are under the control of separatists, but
Germany doesn't but France does. The UK does as well.
US innerpolitics even forces the US president to increase North Korea sanctions after the recent cyberattack when he knows that the thing that actually good to do is to increase interaction between North Korea and the outside world. Ignoring threads of nuclear attack is likely not very popular in the US.
That's a very risky thing to do. It might trigger nuclear first strike protocols on the US side.
I think the scenario will be a wee bit different:
Russia invades Finland. Germany announces it's going to send lots of troops to Finland to fight against the Russians. Putin announces that if Germany does this he will drop an atomic bomb on Berlin. Terrified Russian elites remove Putin from power.
Even in Russia I don't think there is any political faction which thinks that a nuclear exchange is a good idea.
Military power of EU was not enough to stop or seriously inconvenience Milosevic.
What? Did he invade an EU country?
Well, first the Finns are likely to put up serious resistance. There a reason why Finland was an independent country post-WW2 and not the 16th Soviet republic.
The "logical" next targets for Putin are the Baltics.
But the Baltic states are in NATO, and so the U.S. is more likely to defend them than it would Finland.
Whether US and Europe are more likely to go to war with Russia over Finland or over the Baltics is an interesting question, but there doesn't appear to be any way of deciding it :-)
NATO is a point in favor of the U.S. being more likely to fight over the Baltics than Finland. Are there any factors going the other way?
Yes. The Baltics belonged to Russia much more recently than Finland and have a much larger Russian minority population.
This is just neocon blather. I'll bet you $2000 Russia does not invade Finland by the end of the Obama presidency.
I agree the odds are well under 50%. If you provide your real identity, I would bet $20 based on a 20% chance that Russia will invade a country (other than the Ukraine) by the end of the Obama presidency, so you would have to give me $100 if Russia did invade. I will bet more if your real identity causes me to assign a high probability of you paying if you lose. This is me.
So you claim a 20% chance that Russia will invade a country other than Ukraine by January 20, 2017? That is not really specific to your prediction that Putin is likely to try to steal territory by the end of the Obama administration. For example, the US has invaded many countries in the last 15 years but hasn't been trying to take territory. In addition, the Russian invasion would have to be aggressive (i.e. the other country did not attack first.) Something like the 2008 Georgia war would not count.
Edit: If you can agree to those terms, I will accept the 20:100 odds you offer.
It's Ukraine, not the Ukraine, since the latter version already implies, through history of language, that the territory is a (border) part of Russia (okraina).
I'm concerned about what happens after the end of the Obama presidency as well as before.
You should note that while having more territory usually does help a country to be more powerful, it is not the only way to be a powerful country. While trying to conquer as much land as possible made sense when agriculture was the primary source of wealth, nowadays it is somewhat more complicated because industry and service sector of annexed territory are often destroyed by the war and has to be rebuilt so why not build in the territory you already own. That leaves natural resources such as oil and coal, but it is sometimes possible to profit from them even without having direct control over them, for example, by owning (directly or indirectly) companies that extract those resources from the ground and having enough influence over the government of that country to prevent them from meddling with those companies. Having higher population seems to be useful in some cases, but wars tend to create a lot refugees and creating an economic union that you dominate is perhaps a good enough substitute. Therefore, it sometimes might not make sense to try to conquer as much territory as possible, especially when that territory does not have a lot of natural resources. I don't think that NATO and EU are the only things that stop Russia from trying to conquer Baltic States or Finland, they also lack the necessity to do so. Because military force is not the only way to gain a lot of influence over the country's actions.
In my country (and I would guess in Finland as well), what many people fear is not Russian tanks, it is Russia gaining a lot of influence by making backroom deals, promoting and financially supporting certain political parties and individual politicians whose ideas are useful to them, buying up shares in energy companies, either directly or by proxy individuals (who do not have to be Russians themselves, there are a lot of people who got rich due to having the right connections and they often want to preserve those connections) and gaining cultural influence. Finlandization is often a good enough substitute for the actual conquest. I am not an expert in geopolitics or international relations, but it is my impression that while Crimea does have strategic importance to Russia due its warm deepwater ports, it is harder to make such case for Donbas/Donbass or South Ossetia (or Abkhazia, or Transistria). It is my impression that in these cases it is not necessarily just the territory itself that is important to Russia, but the fact that having disputed territories may make it significantly more difficult for those countries to join NATO and EU, and, that by waging these small scale wars Russia demonstrates ability and willingness to protect their interests, thus sending a signal to many people that Russia is a powerful country and therefore siding with their interests in a domestic politics of their respective countries and trying to establish connections with them is potentially useful. For example, by negotiating with each country individually, Russia is able to extract higher prices for its natural gas than they would be able if EU countries coordinated with each other and negotiated as one bloc. In addition to that, because of these large profit margins, Russia is able to selectively make discounts for some countries in exchange for various things that they want, for example, naval facilities. Thus it is in Russia's interest to try to weaken the EU, therefore they support various anti-EU parties, politicians (both right wing and (probably) left wing) and people who are influential in politics without themselves being politicians in various ways. However, I predict that it would be much more difficult to attract such allies if Russia would give in to Western demands and remove their troops from regions such as Donbas, because it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore Russia would not be thought of as worth siding with. Even though these anti-EU parties would probably still be anti-EU, they would no longer necessarily be against, e.g. sanctions against Russia. Perhaps even more importantly, there are a lot of influential people in Eastern Europe and Central Asia who find it useful to join whichever side is more powerful and a sign of Russia's weakness would make the option of seeking closer relations with the West more attractive, thus reducing Russia's influence even further.
To sum up, in my layman's view, I do not think that Russia is hungry for more territory, but it is probably hungry for more power and influence over decision making in other countries (because it is a useful thing to have), which can be acquired by other means than conquest. I conjecture that the present situation in Donbas is probably not because Russia desires to annex the Donets Basin, but perhaps because giving in would send a signal that Russia is not strong enough and/or not willing to protect its own interests (let alone interests of their allies), therefore not worth siding with.
The EU far outdoes Russia in population, military spending, wealth, and technology. They don't need the United States to win a conventional war against Russia. The Russian advantage lies in unity and a European aversion to force. It may be advantageous for Putin to assert dominance over some of the former Soviet states. But an outright invasion of the EU? If anything would create a united front against Russia, that would be it. I don't know if Putin as after territory so much as maintaining a buffer zone against Western influence (and scoring the occasional political victory over the US).
Moondust: In Search of the Men who Fell to Earth
Not a technical book about the Apollo program by any means. The author goes around finding and interviewing all the surviving moonwalkers as of the time he was writing it (9) about the effect the event had on their lives. Some report massive changes in perspective about the Earth. Some feel massively betrayed by NASA, having taken part in something they felt was the first step in a direction and which was then not followed up on (be the reasons for that good or bad). There's pretty much as many reactions as there are moonwalkers.
But then, most fascinating to me was the difference between living the history and watching the history. Armstrong and Aldrin on Apollo 11 didn't really appreciate how much importance was projected on their mission and how much mythologization of the event was going on back home, with half a billion people watching them live (and indeed it was the first huge live media event of this type). They were just doing their jobs - and then the president gets on the line with them on the surface of the moon and they scramble to not make asses of themselves talking extemporaneously while lugging around hundreds of kg of equipment on their backs. And when they get back and are in isolation (as all the first moonwalkers were in case of living microbes on the moon) and are dealing with a constant parade of dignitaries outside their little window, eventually they gather the gravitas that the event had for the world at large. Aldrin turns to Armstrong and says "Neil, we missed it!"
Fanfiction Thread
VERY NSFW: Ship of the Line: Forever After Earth which just completed, is a very very smutty 24-chapter crossover between Buffy, Stargate: SG-1, and the author's own original transhumanist fiction. (And in later chapters, characters from other fictional universes like Nanoha and Madoka also contribute).
I'm linking it here, partly because the author is very clearly familiar with the LessWrong community, though I don't know whether he posts here under some different name. Whether I recommend it or not... I recommend it for those who would read R-rated stories, but the plot personally lost me towards the end when characters from more fictional universes started appearing -- perhaps because I wasn't as familiar with those characters, but also I think they just weren't necessary: I think the story would have actually likely been better if it had omitted them altogether and just finished with gur gevb'f zhygv-qrcnegher gb fcernq vzzbegnyvgl npebff gur cynargf bs gur tnynkl.
On my part I enjoyed the depiction of a culture whose members seems almost entirely without any fear of physical harm or physical intimacy either.
TRIGGER WARNINGS for a few depictions of rape. Also that the post-humans in question can't be physically or emotionally harmed by such, causes them to view rapes against them as merely "rude".
Online Videos Thread
Michael Shermer plugs his new book, The Moral Arc [Reactor?]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIw25wzbGtU
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/the-moral-arc-author-gets-in-the-hot-seat-386643011696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB6T5heBylE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVpZKh2Atro
More of Zoltan Istvan, on Reason TV:
What If You Could Live for 10,000 years? Q&A with Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pi52PNL_c0&feature=youtu.be
http://franklinmethod.com/latest-news/why-you-shouldnt-grip-your-core-part-2
Explains why pulling your navel towards your back and/or raising your pelvic floor while inhaling makes moving more difficult. Actually, the pelvic floor should increase tone while lengthening during inhalation (this is an eccentric contraction).
For what it's worth, I felt better following the instructions, and I suspect that gripping one's core muscles may be a result of emotional habits as well as a result of following bad advice.
Short Online Texts Thread
What Can Supporters Do for Transhumanism? by Zoltan Istvan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/what-can-supporters-do-fo_b_6564536.html
Zoltan suggests changing careers, assuming that you can find ones which allow for feasible transhumanist-sounding projects to work on.
But I would add the fallback one of just figuring out how to make and save a lot more money to give you the resources to do some of these things.
Ishtvan's entire approach is so ethically disturbing and PR-toxic, it really doesn't help the transhumanist movement to promote him. The first and second of his "Transhumanist Laws" basically amount to just screaming "I defect!" repeatedly. This is unfortunate because he's a decent writer and he also does on occasion make interesting points that I haven't seen elsewhere.
Istvan's constant self-promotion bothers me. I never heard of this guy until two years ago, when he published The Transhumanist Wager. I read that and reviewed in Cryonics magazine because it involves cryonics as a subplot.
Then I started to see his writings in several places. And last summer he got on one of John Stossel's specials on the Fox network, where both he and Stossel represented him as a leader in the cryonics community.
Again, I signed up with Alcor a quarter century ago, and I never heard of Istvan until early in 2013. Who made him a "leader" in the cryonics movement, and based on what criteria?
Now he has started a "Transhumanist Party" and he wants to insert himself into American national politics. We could see him in one of those debates with the other off-brand Presidential candidates from the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and other fringe groups.
Now, I approve of the fact that he wants to draw attention to some ideas for technological progress that we should push on a lot harder than we have so far. But what has he really offered us other than telling us about his action-hero life on the sailboat, how he doesn't want to die, please read his novel (he often discounts his Kindle version, or even offers it for free), and vote for him for President?
Yeah, I think it is pretty clear that he's a shameless self-promoter. Maybe he'd argue that it is consistent with his Second Law of Transhumanism?
Leadership?
It's a rare quality. I didn't like his book, but I did like him in interviews he's done. People have a tendency to rally behind anyone who leads.
Istvan claims he was born in L.A., grew up there and then went to Columbia University. But something about his accent doesn't sound right to me. I lived in Southern California during the years 1991-2004, so I've had plenty of exposure to how people in the Southland talk.
I think "Transhumanism" is a political non-starter as it just has too many weird/negative mental associations. A serious attempt at a pro-science/pro-technology political party should start by shedding the term "transhumanism" and some of its associated themes, like cyborgs and strange/unnecessary human modification.
There is a huge amount of enthusiasm for technology and science among the Millennials and even some Gen Xers, but most of it is just frittered away on worthless projects like Solar Freakin Roadways and enthusiasm for consumer electronics.
I think there is a huge amount of enthusiasm for consumer electronics which is misinterpreted as enthusiasm for technology and science.
Radical Muslims have embraced social media, for example. And I've gathered that the snuff film of the Jordanian prisoner shows good production values, though I don't care to watch that because I'll just hear the Middle English song "Sumer is icumen in" in my head.
Everything is heritable:
Politics/religion:
Statistics/AI/meta-science:
Psychology/biology:
Technology:
Economics:
Philosophy:
Science’s Biggest Fail
Article on Philip Tetlock's new research on predictions in Harvard Business Review
MIT"s Leonard Guarente has gone to market with:
The Anti-Aging Pill Facing a long wait for evidence, a longevity researcher takes an unusual path to market.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534636/the-anti-aging-pill/
Guarente's website: http://www.elysiumhealth.com/
At least Guarente understands that it takes a baseline of many decades to see if these experiments make a difference. He doesn't go for this "immortality in 30 years" nonsense that plagues folk transhumanism.
Dr. Bruce Ames did something like this several years ago to promote the use of the combination of acetyl-l-carnitine and alpha lipoic acid as an experiment to decelerate aging in human mitochondria:
http://www.juvenon.com/
A Humanist Approach To Environmental Issues, by an Objectivist named Alex Epstein:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/29/a-humanist-approach-to-environmental-issues/
Eternal Youth for All! by Ronald Bailey:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/06/eternal-youth-for-all
I found this disappointing because it seems like I read similar articles about imminent breakthroughs in anti-aging back in the 1990's, only the names of the elixirs have changed. Remember the hype about melatonin a few years ago?
You have indeed read similar articles. It's never that simple.
Virtual Reality, The Empathy Machine
Thanks for your contribution. However, it would be great if you could posr under the appropriate top level comment in the future so that people can more easily determine which type of media you're recommending.
Sure. Sorry about that.