dotcommand
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.
The workers on the other hand, not as well.
> 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Gulistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turkmenchay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1857)
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#/media/Fil...
> 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.
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.
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?
https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boun...
You would think most countries would demand their citizens data be stored locally.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_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.
Hilarious. These propagandists really can't help themselves. "Survive the cultural revolution". Like a billion other chinese? It's funny how the same propaganda sweeps across the media at the same time. I've seen "Survived the cultural revolution" from fox news to the washingtonpost and everything in between.
> "School district officials announced that, as a result of their new admissions system, they slashed the percentage of Asian students admitted to TJ to 54 percent this year from 73 percent last year."
That is dramatic drop but what did they expect? The problem with chinese/asian american population is that they are too small a base to matter. And considering they marry out at extraordinary ( dare I say genocidal rates ), they'll matter even less in the future. In a democracy, numbers matter.
> The American Dream of equal treatment
Since when has equal treatment been part of america or the american dream? Maybe instead of mindlessly memorizing "facts and propaganda", these people should have learned critical thinking. Or the history of natives, africans, mexicans, etc in the US. Or their own history. The history of asian americans has never been that of equal treatment.
If these people are stupid enough to believe "The American Dream of equal treatment" then they deserve what they get. Hard to sympathize with such people.
One thing I do find odd is that the CRT advocates are so intent on increasing black enrollment at a school named after a slave owning white supremacist ( Thomas Jefferson ). Wonder how they square that circle.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
> 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.
Hunt the minnows while at the SEC. Get hired by the whales after leaving the SEC.
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.
All science is based on hypothesis-testing.
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.
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.
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.
It's so opaque that you know who is funding, building, etc? Right. Also, who else is going to bring the financing? And as for infrastructure, hasn't china shown to be the best at it?
> Foreign companies are often largely left out.
So what? It's a china led project which the west is opposed. What do you expect?
> The people benefit very little as the resources and value extracted return to China.
That's true for everybody. The people benefit very little. Do you think "the people" benefited from Canada sending timber to the US or Australia selling iron ore to china for decades?
Why don't we offer a better deal? So using your logic, afghanistan shouldn't trade with anyone?
If china's deal is that awful and afghanistan is choosing them, doesn't it really show how even more for awful everyone else is?
Also, I wouldn't take anything by wsj, rupert murdoch owned and controlled propaganda outlet, seriously when it comes to china as his propaganda empire is peddling the most anti-china propaganda.
Do you think "the west" cares about afghanistan, africa or any nation involved in BRI? Do you think we are mad because china is ripping them off or that china is actually giving these BRI nations a good deal? My guess is the latter. Or we worried that china is ripping off afghanistan, a nation we invaded and brutalized for decades? Or are you worried because china is giving them the best deal? Be honest. Given how evil we've been for a few centuries now, which do you think?
Was reading Moby Dick the other day and came across this excerpt...
'Grand Contested Election for the Presidency of the United States.
WHALING VOYAGE BY ONE ISHMAEL.
BLOODY BATTLE IN AFGHANISTAN.'
The more things change...
> But here we are, 2+ Trillion burned and nothing to show for it.
Other than another grateful nation basking in the glow of the democracy we've bestowed upon them. Mission accomplished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
Is Freeman Dyson an "anti-intellectual"? Populist? Afflicted with ideology-driven motivated reasoning.
My point is that the article is trying to make it seem that ANY opposition to the consensus is due to anti-intellectualism, populism, etc. Some of it sure, but much of it for a variety of valid reasons. This article is a way of protecting their orthodoxy from pushback by tainting the opposition as "anti-intellectual, populist, etc". It's the modern day equivalent of trying to silence a critic by calling them a heretic.
Do "intellectuals/experts" think they are modern day priests - not to be challenged. Their words are gospel? No thanks. After all it was "intellectuals/experts" who gave us nazism, state racism, human experimentation without consent, etc.
Critical thinking is a general thing, not something for news stories. Besides the idea that school teach critical thinking in anything is laughable in this day and age.
What should be taught is history of news and why it exists. Not how to decipher good "news" from bad "news" because there is no good or bad "news". There is only agenda. Schools should also teach the history of modern school systems and the education department. Quite eye opening.
By your comment, it's apparently clear you didn't learn anything valuable in your class. But then again, it's Stony Brook.
I'm in agreement with what you wrote. The amount of apocalypses we lived through is astounding when you think about it.
But fear sells and the media/corporations/politicians/etc have to make their money. With hurrican season coming up, it's super-hurricane apocalyse time no doubt.
I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
Considering that the "defense" budget has increased, I doubt the empire is ending anytime soon. More wars. You have to justify your budget. My guess is that we will be "defending" ourselves all over asia, africa, south america, etc. Now that iraq, syria, libya, afganistan, etc were turned to rubble ( mission accomplished ), we'll need to spread "democracy" all over the world.
We're like the borg. We have to assimilate them all. It's amazing how long we've been able to get away with being so evil and cruel.
"At Packt, we take the protection of our copyright and licenses very seriously. If you come across any illegal copies of our works in any form on the internet, please provide us with the location address or website name immediately so that we can pursue a remedy."
They want their readers to be the their personal snitches online. What a crazy world we are headed towards.