merc

joined 1 year ago
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Even if the democrats weren't actually holding their members accountable, it should be done. So what if dozens of politicians, both R and D get expelled as a result. Nobody should be upset that people who had bad ethics reports get expelled.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

The Nazis based a lot of their racial laws on what was being done in the US, especially the south. Sure, the Allies included a diverse set of nations, but those nations were often incredibly racist too.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

If Germany hadn't turned on the Russians it would have won the war. If they'd managed to get access to the French Navy after invading France, they probably would have won the war.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 day ago

IMO the biggest deal here was the Royal Navy. The UK started the war still clinging on to an empire that included almost half the world. They protected that empire with the biggest navy in the world. That meant that once Germany went to war with Britain by invading Poland, Germany couldn't ship in anything via the Atlantic or via the Mediterranean. When they were allies with the Russians, that at least meant that they had access to everything Russia had in abundance, but when they did the ol' red beard thing, they were boxed in on 4 sides. Meanwhile, their enemies late in the war had become manufacturing powerhouses with access to vast amounts of natural resources.

The whole story of U-Boats in WWII is really a story of how outmatched the German navy was. Rather than going toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy, the Germans had to snipe some of the constant shipments of goods flowing into the UK from around the globe. Even at the peak of their military power, they had ceded control of the seas to the British. Their only real naval force were stealth craft that could ambush and then run away. Since the British and then the Allies controlled the seas, it allowed them to invade by sea, first Sicily and then D-Day in France.

So, without the Royal Navy, Germany would have had access to goods from around the world, and wouldn't have been vulnerable to an invasion by sea in the later stages of the war.

As for Russia, the bigger deal about getting within a few km of Moscow was that at the same time they were also getting very close to Baku. If they'd managed to control the Azerbaijani oil fields, it would have cut off oil supply to the USSR while gaining a huge oil supply for themselves.

What the Germans did in WWII was very impressive, especially considering that 15 years before the start of WWII the German economy was in such a state of collapse that inflation was running at 3 million percent per month. Prices for regular goods doubled every 2 days. Kids were playing with stacks of bills because those stacks were effectively worthless. Germany went from being the losers of WWI paying massive reparations that destroyed their economy, to being a force able to conquer virtually an entire continent. Unfortunately, that continent lacked critical natural resources and so eventually they lost because they couldn't keep up with the manufacturing powers of their enemies.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I'd say they're tight, not loose.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago

It's worse than that.

Blockchain Capital LLC was co-founded by Steve Bannon pal Brock Pierce, a major crypto advocate, perennial presidential candidate, and close friend of Eric Adams. Pierce has dozens of other shady MAGA/Russia ties as well.

https://toad.social/@davetroy/113476797192400901

Dorsey's already out, the people running the project are from the TESCREAL gang.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

A feature that makes it easier for their users to migrate to a competitor? Blockchain Capital invests $15M in BlueSky. Insert that Anakin / Padme meme:

Anakin: Now that we've invested, let's make that federation feature priority 0
Padme: As in highest priority, right?
Anakin:
Padme: As in highest priority, right?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

tract

rap

various

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Playing Red Dead Redemption makes me think that at one point they weren't that expensive if you lived in a very rural area.

  • Feeding them probably wasn't too expensive if you had a place they could just graze. Even if you didn't own a farm, there were probably still wild / common areas where animals could graze.
  • Shoeing / vet care probably wasn't as expensive when horses were the main means of transportation, so vets and smiths were everywhere
  • In a rural area, you probably already had a barn / stable / shack that you could use to provide the horse with shelter, so it didn't need its own additional building. If you did need to build a structure, land was cheap and so it was only the cost of labor you had to worry about.
  • Cleaning out the horse poop was a chore, but it could be used as fertilizer, so it wasn't just something you had to dispose of
  • You'd still need saddles, stirrups, reins, etc. But, that was made from leather and metal and would probably last decades with some basic maintenance
  • Since horses were, ahem, workhorses, not race horses or display horses, they were probably bred to be sturdier and not as prone to requiring medicine or frequent vet trips

It was probably similar to cars today, where some people had expensive, fancy horses that they spent lots of money on, and other people had old clunkers that they got cheap and then rode until they died.

I get the impression that when people today talk about hoses being expensive, a lot of that expense is due to them living in a city. My guess is that if you already live on a working farm, adding one horse is not going to massively increase your expenses.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Almost everything in any religion is a "telephone game" retelling of things. These days they're the same to most people which is what really matters.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Luce means light in Italian. Lucifer means "light bringer" and the mythos is about trying to steal the light (luce) of god. It doesn't mean "luce" is bad.

I guess the Catholic church overestimated the education of its followers.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

"Luz" is an incredibly common name in Spanish speaking countries. It means light. "Luce" means light in Italian, but seems to be less common as a name. Lucifer means "Light-bringer", and the myth of the light-bringer is much, much older than Christianity.

Old religions thought things in the sky were gods. Venus orbits closer to the sun than the Earth, which means light reflecting from it is extremely bright, but that light is only visible near sunrise and sunset. During the rest of the day the brightness of the sun overwhelms the reflected light from Venus, and during the rest of the night it's not visible because it's near the sun, so it's behind the earth. So, old religions talked about the brightest "god" in the sky, who disappeared when it got too bright or too dark. That led to the myth of the god who tried to be the brightest light and was cast down. That, of course, led to Satan, A.K.A. Lucifer.

I guess the Catholic church was giving its followers too much credit in their understanding of words.

view more: next ›