Readit Newswolverine876 commented on Deutsche Bahn introduces "MetaWindow" railtarget.eu/technologie... · Posted by u/metters
> It’s usually on public property
Which gets cleaned up with public money that could be used elsewhere, or stays there as an eyesore.
> It’s not on the front of people’s houses.
Sometimes the sides too.
> people say that about modern art, and about that crazy 'rock'n'roll'!
Did you just compare modern art and rock and roll to the few letter “tag” sprayed in 10 seconds again and again hundreds of time throughout a city? Because that’s what 99.99% of graffiti is, simple tags and doodles [0][1] anyone can make.
Charitably I’ll say you just didn’t pay attention to tagging’s aesthetic effect on a city. The less charitable alternative seeing the “tag = modern art + rock and roll” opinion is that you’re one of the “artist”.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fy...
[1] https://cooltourspain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/tag-gra...
Maybe I just have a different perspective than you; it's not a mistake to disagree with you - or vice versa. Unless we're interested in the world outside our perspecitve, how will we learn anything new?
> Did you just compare modern art and rock and roll to the few letter “tag” sprayed in 10 seconds again and again hundreds of time throughout a city?
Yes! That's what rock'n'roll is at its core, three chords (or fewer) and the truth, and that's how it was characterized - artless noise, etc.
People try to put us d-down
Just because we get around
Things they do look awful c-c-cold
I hope I die before I get old
> Because that’s what 99.99% of graffiti is, simple tags and doodles [0][1] anyone can make.
It's just noise, I tell you!
Now get off my lawn geezer! :p :)
> The world desperately needs a leader - a Churchill, a Lincoln, just about anyone - to stand up to it, to show people there are other, much better ways.
The Churchill who authorized the bombing of Berlin? The Churchill who authorized the bombing of Dresden?
The Lincoln that authorized Sherman's march to the sea with its intentional destruction of civilian areas to break the will of the south to fight?
The Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus?
I think Churchill and Lincoln were far more willing to use force in the service of what they saw as right than people think they were.
If everyone with flaws is disqualified, or is equal to everyone else with flaws, then it all loses meaning.
I'm not certain those were flaws in forsight, or necessarily even in hindsight. Regardless, those leaders did not preach or lead on the basis of fear, hatred, an ignorance.
Whoa, hold up for a second.
> He began by saying that the US has to “scare our adversaries to death” in war. Referring to Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, he said: “If what happened to them happened to us, there’d be a hole in the ground somewhere.
You cited this as an example of an extreme opinion, but this is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War.
We don’t want to go to war -> Enemies won’t attack us if they think they can’t accomplish their goals by doing so -> Make sure they understand they will die if they attack us -> no war! (At least, in theory.)
You may disagree with that opinion but it’s not at all extreme, that’s the mindset most of the military has. And it is rooted in the desire to prevent large scale conflict.
> this is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War.
That's not MAD as I understand it: The essential challenge of international relations is to create non-escalatory situations - situations where parties won't be compelled or tempted to engage in a escalatory cycle that lead to warfare, which is often unwanted by all parties to it but unavoidable. Obviously, that can't be allowed to happen with strategic nuclear weapons.
Parties that are 'scared to death' tend to escalate; they are human; they panic, they imagine things and act on their fears. It's the warmongers and basement generals who imagine 'scared to death' tactics.
MAD was designed to create a stable, non-escalatory, trusted situation. There were treaties limiting weapons and their deployment, hotlines, verification. Weapons were spread out, including in the triad (at sea, in air, and on land), to reduce the ability of the enemy to knock them all out, and thus to disincentivize a surprise attack.
MAD is only used with nuclear weapons afaik, and only with Russia and now, probably, with China.
> Many extreme warmongers are out there now; there's a powerful tide of embracing violence and hate
Sure. But that still violates the author's dichotomy: a hateful warmonger wants death. If you're an amoral war profiteer, your fodder are folks who want death. Dividing the audience into people who care about money only and people who care about death (presumably the good guys in the author's view) makes no sense.
I think it's a strawperson, a distraction, to take it literally and criticize it. That's not the main issue or point of the article. They can't flesh out every point in detail.
(2023)
wolverine876 commented on Deutsche Bahn introduces "MetaWindow" railtarget.eu/technologie... · Posted by u/metters
consent. same as the difference between a shower and getting caught out in the rain
The kids painting street art have no power to consent or not consent to anything. If they had access to art supplies, a loft, and a gallery, they'd probably use them.
wolverine876 commented on Deutsche Bahn introduces "MetaWindow" railtarget.eu/technologie... · Posted by u/metters
As opposed to people who define words written on the internet and not even directed at a specific person as "violence"?
What are you referring to? I don't see that in this discussion.
The second reason we are going to the moon so that we can put the first person of color and the first woman on the moon. That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose.
Only time will tell if either of these two missions were actually worth it.
One more point
> Early on, SLS designers made the catastrophic decision to reuse Shuttle hardware, which is like using Fabergé eggs to save money on an omelette.
SLS designers did not make the decision to use shuttle hardware per se. SLS was explicitly designed and funded to use that hardware. One of the original purposes of Artemis, before the other two purposes that we see in the media were even decided upon, was to make use of shuttle hardware.
> That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose.
Where does it say that?