Mearsheimer was right: Putin wrecks Ukraine.

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...

Why would an article from 2019 be a counterargument to criticisms from 2022? Especially when the first sentence of that article is a prime example of Mearsheimers blind spot: that the Russians aren't actually realists, but instead are a kind of idealist focused on Russias dignity as a (percieved) great power. Almost like virtue ethics as opposed to the consequentionalist ethics of realism.

Chalmers: “It is natural to hope that there will be a materialist solution to the hard problem and a reductive explanation of consciousness, just as there have been reductive explanations of many other phenomena in many other domains. But consciousness seems to resist materialist explanation in a way that other phenomena do not.”

"A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007961072...

Thanks for the reference, that looks like a pretty thorough review.

It seems to me that Chalmers already precludes the possibility of physical/materialist explanations with his claim, quoted in the first section:

> There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold.

This certainly doesn't feel obvious or intuitive to me. I would expect that someone with the same neuronal make-up will have the same experience.

It is neither obvious nor intuitive. But it is logical possible that we all are Zombies.

In my regard the weak link is our understanding of materialism. It is to simple minded. (though panpsychism sounds really crank)

No, I mean that the logical possibility itself is neither obvious nor intuitive. If you physically copied me atom by atom, every instinct in me says that the result has conscious experience. I'd need some serious convincing otherwise.

That would be a good fit for a prediction market.

I think Restraint usually loses. In times like these, though, warmongers have a harder time, and those two are truly creepy characters.

>the law of the excluded middle, which says something can't be true and false at the same time

This is the not excluded middle, it is the "Law of noncontradiction"

Excluded middle means: either p is true or the negation of p is true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I don't care about gas prices either. But next winter is going to be expensive. I don't have the option of switching from natural gas to a heat pump.

But of course, electrification as soon as possible.

I guess, a high oil price is a good thing for the oil industry, especially when producing oil domestically becomes more expensive.

But I also don't believe in some conspiracy by the American oil industry to eliminate other suppliers in order to fleece Europe.

(the article is not by Henry Farrell itself, it seems to be below his niveau)

https://shalemag.com/peak-oil-production-in-the-us/

High oil prices are good for most of the oil industry, but the oil industry is only like 3% of the US economy.

On the other hand, elevated oil prices are bad for a very large chunk of the other 97% of the US economy, who rely on buying oil and oil derived products in order to operate their industry.

I had to undress back then.

But anyway:

"The Clash - The Call Up (Official Video)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScaGjwkg2Y

That all makes a lot of sense. Mr. Devereux is being more realistic this time than he was at the start of the war in Ukraine.

My takeaway from the war in Ukraine is: it’s going to get worse and last longer than anyone ever imagined.

I remember his protracted war posts, and ... indeed there's still a war going there, and fortunately it did not even get into the anticipated guerilla phase.

Can you elaborate a bit on what was unrealistic? (Maybe you have different posts or claims by him in mind?)

I checked the blog, You have a point. Brett Devereux was more cautious.

"If you are trying to follow the War in Ukraine, I strongly suggest watching the War on the Rocks podcasts for the times they bring in Michael Kofman."

I’ve been caught up in “guilt by association” here. Michael Kofman always struck me as a cheap propagandist. (but I should shut up now)

Paying WoR subscriber here. Kofman likes to talk a lot and can't interview others because of it. He is also clearly pro-Ukraine.

But I never saw him as a cheap propagandist. Not even an expensive one.

Despite his obvious allegiance, he regularly criticised UAs actions and never went for any of the hurrah-hurr-durr delusions you had anywhere else. During the siege of Bachmut he repeatedly and clearly said that UA has nothing to gain from holding out. I remember him openly critical of the sacking of the defence minister, candidly describing the problems in UAs recruitment, never hyped up drones, avoided predictions and after that first fiasco with Trump and Vance last year he did not hold back criticism towards Zelensky and not once can I remember him painting the Russians as morons. On the contrary, in one episode he dismisses any sort of essentialism and related chauvinism, this was when refuting the idea that broad parallels can be seen between Napoleonic and today's Russia.

Habermas was a decent guy. He stood for a liberal and social democratic Germany. I respect that he didn’t fully go along with the shift towards crusading liberalism and militarism in Germany.

He was always part of the establishment. His writing was rambling and boring, and I always thought he was naive. RIP

Long version

https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/519683.j%C3%BCrgen-habermas...

He was a follower of Adorno whose ideas have not had a good legacy.

fourty

(1945 - 1949 it was split in 4 occupation zones)

If you ignore Berlin (which, I think, kept its four occupation zones) it were first four, three from January 1, 1947, and two from from August 1, 1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizone)

thanks