anindefinitearticle [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 13th, 2024

help-circle







  • Frequentism relies on the dubious assumption that an objective reality is both possible, and that this privileged reference frame is the one from which the data being analyzed were taken.

    Einstein’s general relativity is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of a privileged reference frame from which an observer can operate objectively. Einstein credits his socialism with providing him this insight, and frankly all of relativity breaks down without it.

    Bayesianism acknowledges that bias is fundamentally intertwined with all evidence, and that evidence only makes sense within the context of the question being asked. Bayesianism is the recognition that all new data must be interpreted within the context of the biases that led to it being taken.


  • That’s what astrology IS. Early, pre-civilization humans observed and studied natural phenomena and astronomical bodies to determine time, to navigate, and to develop a calendar (the zodiac). This is what we developed/organized and passed down as a civilization for these purposes.

    It got wrapped up in a questionable psychological model so people would remember it. Even if the reason why people remember the zodiac is not tied to material reality, it still holds incidental value because remembering the zodiac can help you if you get lost because it is based on millennia of careful study of material observations of natural phenomena and astronomical bodies.









  • I agree that policy choices often have consequences years/decades down the line.

    Most of my mid-century Soviet history and understanding comes within the context of the space race. Khrushchev was a champion of science and advocated for peace through space. I learned that he softened a lot of the totalitarian policies he inherited from Stalin. When he stepped aside, he saw it as a good thing that he was being replaced via a challenge that no one would dare launch against Stalin and his cult of personality. That meant that he had successfully pulled the nation away from blind subservience to a supreme leader. He didn’t go as far as Glasnost, but he led the Union away from being led by dictators and towards more stable institutional systems of power.

    Power that cannot respond to the needs of its roots will not be able to adapt to a changing world. Stalin was an impressive leader who had to make some brutally hard decisions in trying times. He left a country unable to adapt to the shifts of the latter 20th century. Had Stalin been willing to incorporate systems of peacefully negotiating disagreements with (e.g.) Trotsky, the USSR might have been flexible enough to have survived. He replaced an authoritarian monarch, unresponsive to the needs of the people, with an authoritarian dictatorship, which pretended to be responsive but could not keep up the charade without serious systems of peaceful self-correction led by the working proletariat.

    I have not looked into Soviet agricultural policies under Khrushchev, other than by investigating the history of the Aral sea (central Russia is real Russia, ignore those westerners cosplaying in Moscow/Petrograd since Peter). During Khrushchev’s time is when disrespect for this staple of central asian ecology accelerated. Now the sea is mostly gone due to poor agricultural practices, mostly for the extraction of cotton. We are reaping what Khrushchev sowed as central asia dies, one of the biggest obstacles to stabilizing an ecosystem on the brink.

    I’m curious to hear which policies you think Khrushchev was responsible for that led to later food insecurities.