I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons:
1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory.
In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).
>Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
This is Europe. Women won't have more children, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
>Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime.
This is Europe. Women won't take over a large share of industrial labor, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
I'm in a country ~5mil population (less than israel's) where men are conscripted and there is a fair amount of angst regarding their sacrifice. IMO, the cause is a mix of patriarchy and voteshare.
Factor #2 is no longer true, nowadays more and more stuff is being produced by machines. Moreover women can pick up guns. Drones can be piloted. Lethality is only going to go up.
No one sane would want to go fight in a war where lethality is high. Nor train for something that requires looming, recurring obligations for a good 10-20 years of their life. This is real sacrifce. If you want respect, at some point you have to put skin in the game.
Easier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
Well, you see, if men stay alive, but women are killed, society collapses eventually as not enough new people are born. It sucks being a man in this scenario, but it is what it is.
And if you include women (well, all genders) directly in the war efforts you double the amount of soldiers you have, which would increase your chance of winning and not needing to repopulate.
The key here is to refuse fighting. Nobody becomes a hero by becoming a murderer whose goal is to defend the political power of Stalin, Napoleon, Bush, or whoever.
I suspect one tool governments across the world will resort to when they get desperate about sub-replacement fertility is changing mandatory conscription from males to the childless. Quite strong incentive, not be sent to the meatgrinder.
Obviously the oil spike, while not a relatively massive price hike historically, is clearly accelerating the pace of electrification, similarly to how COVID accelerated the use of zoom and other remote work platforms. But also similarly, it will probably be the case that gas is still used for some needs, just not nearly as many as today. People still do prefer their gas ranges, and its not as if natural gas is a great pollutant. But electricity is easier to manage than ever now, given battery capacity.
Induction requires your cookware to sit flat against the surface or it won’t heat up (and the range will shut off after a certain time). With natural gas the flames rise through convection and wrap around the contours of the pan. This means many traditional pieces of cookware with round bottoms simply will not work on induction but work fine on natural gas.
Induction also requires the cookware to be ferromagnetic. This rules out a lot of traditional cookware materials such as clay, copper, brass, and stone. Many of these traditional materials are also accompanied by traditional shapes (round bottoms, gently sloped sides) that take advantage of the convection properties of open flame cooking.
Many recipes rely on these traditional vessels for optimal cooking performance. Woks, for example, work much better with a round bottom so liquids can pool in the middle, letting you use less oil for stir frying but still allowing ingredients to spend time in the pooled oil.
The temperature profile of a round-bottom wok over gas flame is also superior to a flat-bottom wok on induction: the traditional wok has a bright hot spot at the bottom (where all the oil is pooling) in addition to heat up all around the sloped sides, for rapidly reducing liquids that come out of foods and cooking sauces (soy sauce, shaoxing wine) with an arc-splash technique. The flat-bottom wok on induction has a uniformly hot surface on the bottom but the sides remain cool, causing all liquids in contact with the sides to run down to the bottom and begin boiling, just like when you try to stir-fry in a frying pan.
Candy-making is another cooking process that benefits greatly from the convection of natural gas combustion, since molten sugar will crystallize around the sides of a pan if they are not hot enough. Traditional candy-making is done in thin-walled, tin-lined copper pans. These pans don't work at all on induction (no ferromagnetic materials) but even if placed on a ferrous plate they would not perform well due to lack of heating of the sides.
There's a misconception that Chinese food requires a 50,000 BTU burner causing "wok hei" to be right. The truth is that Chinese cuisine is huge and varied. Some regional dishes do actually require that. Most do not and can be cooked at home.
An equivalent induction stove would be around 5000W, which I think exists. The problem with inductioning a wok is the tossing motion removes the wok from the heat, unlike over a big flame. It probably doesn't matter, but maybe it does.
The main difference is that the gas instantly turns off, whereas with induction, the stove surface the pan sits on is just as hot as the pan, because the pan heats it up via contact, so it's almost like electric in that way. I kind of doubt this matters except in certain specialty things like candy making. I'd consider myself a very proficient chef at the level of a new culinary school graduate (minus the restauranteering modules), and in practice any stove type is just fine. I'm not going to rip out my gas stove though; it came with the house and adds resale value.
Woks aren't the only shape of cookware with a non-flat bottom and/or a non-ferrous construction. There are clay pots with many different shapes [1], Korean stone bowls [2], Indian copper cookware [3], Moroccan tagines [4], and many others.
My caveman traditional cooking requires a fire on the floor, or I do bbq and bury my food with coals. Modern cities are bad because I can't do that in my apartment.
Modern cities are bad because people like yourself agitate for legislation to infringe on my personal home life that has essentially zero externalities. We don't need to make cooking a political issue; it's such a stupid thing to create a wedge about. Just leave the gas stove owners alone for God's sake. Natural gas tax already exists for this purpose and some choose to pay the premium.
No one made that argument here. If you’re okay with the trade offs to air quality, go for it. I used to be, then I switched and realised induction really just is better at home
I mean, if you are looking at unventilated kitchens, you are going to get bad values cooking. Pretty much period. Yes, by products of burning gas are bad. But by products of cooking are already bad. Ventilate your kitchen.
Induction is also faster to boil water, easier to clean since it's just flat glass, and safer since an induction stove without a pot/pan stays room temperature (in fact, they usually can detect if a pot/pan is present and automatically turn themselves off)
Induction is also particularly nice for certain types of cooking because many induction stoves can be set to a specific temperature instead of just to a power level.
Agreed that folks should look more favorably on induction. I did not mean my comment as a defense of gas. Just pointing out that most of the pollution from cooking is one where you want a good range hood that vents to the outside. And you need to clean it.
Our last house did not have a vent to the outside and it was eye opening to realize how much grease throughout the entire house was from that.
Right, I was not intending this as a defense of gas ranges. More surprised that they would baseline with a non-ventilated kitchen. Cooking, itself, will pollute your air to a surprising degree.
Nobody is even talking about the worst part...the worst part is, that Trump's economic policies are working, at least according to the latest jobs data. Artificially restricting the labor pool, creating massive corporate levies, forcing businesses to hire domestic labor at the same time. Growth has slowed, freedom and movement have slowed, but the "working class" (except Mexicans and other immigrants I guess) is getting what they want: exceptional job security and good wages. This is always the course of a successful fascist regime: you can't go too far, you can't go and exterminate 10% of your population, you can't completely cut off exports and imports. No; remember, for all his faults, Louis the III rebuilt Paris, he created vital infrastructure, plumbing--the streets were clean, orderly. Designed specifically to prevent uprisings, so large sections could be cordoned off; main streets sold to friends of the regime. It didn't work, of course, and it hasn't ever "worked" long term. Capitalism unleashes energies that cannot be rested by state violence. Energies that must be embraced and overcome from within themselves--the freedom that lets you start a business from nothing or creating a product out of almost thin air with just the tools at your disposal and the people you want to work with, unbound by market forces, the traditional family, any religious institutions. But it can't happen easily, and it won't be fun either. Only fascism ever gets to be "fun," and then its terrible.
Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)
I think this blog post doesn't quite understand Andreessen's position. In fact, perhaps Andreessen doesn't understand his own position, which makes this even worse.
Freud isn't the issue; Freud did not think the unconscious was "inside," he said the unconscious is the metapsychological apparatus which is the result of primary repression (something we all experience at a young age, since we don't remember, for instance, being potty trained, but we don't go around shitting ourselves, at least not intentionally). The ego is, at the most basic level, the skin. Its inside relatively to the outside, but there isn't a hidden subject hiding within it, you can and often do affect the inside of the body through external means, and vica versa.
It was Descartes who originally came up with the idea of a separate "inner" world vs a "outer" experience, the thinking ego-cogito and what it perceives in extension in the world. This formulation has been troublesome for philosophy hence, but in fact it was Freud (and not Heidegger) who succeeded, after a long line of attempts in the 19th century, in radicalizing the ego-cogito and decimated the notion of "inner experience" in the 20th century, which became key to the developments of both psychology and philosophy (hence the ironic reference to the Vienna circle). And more than Freud, in Andreesen's case, it was Nick Land, who took Freud even further, and expanded this idea to refer to unity in general,so that the 0, even that of the computer programming, the empty unity, became its own activity in a broader economy of information and energetics, and this 0 was both that of the psyche-soma, and that of the symbolic movement in computer logic. And that is what Andreesen is trying to refer to, but he is not very well read, of course, he spends most of his time working in tech but he reads this sort of thing and talks to a lot of people who are more well read than he is.
You have got it right (though IDK what you mean by unity and zero), the author is even less well read than Andreesen so their arguments make no sense since they don't have this background.
Libya is and always was a small tribal state that Gadhafi held together by using the revenue from oil to devise a system of alliance that gave a semblance of stability. It never had strong foundations to begin with. Libya and the states in the Arabian peninsula will always be played over because they're stuck in Bedu culture.
reply