@saphroneth.bsky.social
The way to make the Democrats leery of moving right is not to make it so that it's very hard for the more left wing of the two parties to get left-leaning voters. Because at that point, the way to make it more likely that the more lefty party wins... is to tack right. It's tactics.
December 24, 2025 at 4:45 PM
The way to make the Democrats leery of moving right is not to make it so that it's very hard for the more left wing of the two parties to get left-leaning voters. Because at that point, the way to make it more likely that the more lefty party wins... is to tack right. It's tactics.
And Republican propaganda kinda lies a lot, priming a lot of people to believe the worst. A message from The Democrats which confirms that priming could easily do more harm than good.
Judge your vote by which one is the better choice.
Judge your vote by which one is the better choice.
December 24, 2025 at 4:42 PM
And Republican propaganda kinda lies a lot, priming a lot of people to believe the worst. A message from The Democrats which confirms that priming could easily do more harm than good.
Judge your vote by which one is the better choice.
Judge your vote by which one is the better choice.
...what it sounds like is "I want the police to not be there any more". And you cannot restrict who sees it.
This is why dogwhistles exist! They're intended to be messages FOR the base that the rest of the population don't understand the true meaning of.
This is why dogwhistles exist! They're intended to be messages FOR the base that the rest of the population don't understand the true meaning of.
December 24, 2025 at 4:40 PM
...what it sounds like is "I want the police to not be there any more". And you cannot restrict who sees it.
This is why dogwhistles exist! They're intended to be messages FOR the base that the rest of the population don't understand the true meaning of.
This is why dogwhistles exist! They're intended to be messages FOR the base that the rest of the population don't understand the true meaning of.
There is this persistent problem in communications which is that any message that is sent cannot be limited in who sees it, especially if sent publicly. This is why "defund the police" is a really TRICKY slogan - because to people whose opinion of the police is vaguely positive, a common view...
December 24, 2025 at 4:39 PM
There is this persistent problem in communications which is that any message that is sent cannot be limited in who sees it, especially if sent publicly. This is why "defund the police" is a really TRICKY slogan - because to people whose opinion of the police is vaguely positive, a common view...
My understanding is that archers kind of stood in a
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
type formation, so they were deep but all had a line of fire forwards?
But the bigger issue is that a *volley* is "everyone shoots at once". Archers shoot in their own time; musketeers volley, crossbows might IIRC.
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
type formation, so they were deep but all had a line of fire forwards?
But the bigger issue is that a *volley* is "everyone shoots at once". Archers shoot in their own time; musketeers volley, crossbows might IIRC.
December 24, 2025 at 1:09 PM
My understanding is that archers kind of stood in a
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
type formation, so they were deep but all had a line of fire forwards?
But the bigger issue is that a *volley* is "everyone shoots at once". Archers shoot in their own time; musketeers volley, crossbows might IIRC.
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
type formation, so they were deep but all had a line of fire forwards?
But the bigger issue is that a *volley* is "everyone shoots at once". Archers shoot in their own time; musketeers volley, crossbows might IIRC.
...which would, unfortunately, make it less likely that the Democrats get back in power, because of the reaction of the unfortunately large slice of the country who are mostly disengaged from politics. (This is the "single-signal multiple audiences" problem.)
December 24, 2025 at 9:51 AM
...which would, unfortunately, make it less likely that the Democrats get back in power, because of the reaction of the unfortunately large slice of the country who are mostly disengaged from politics. (This is the "single-signal multiple audiences" problem.)
That means fall back no more than 6 inches, and reform at the end.
If you'd fail even without the leadership modifiers, the unit breaks entirely.
So Warhammer: The Old World is... using a battle pulse model!
If you'd fail even without the leadership modifiers, the unit breaks entirely.
So Warhammer: The Old World is... using a battle pulse model!
December 24, 2025 at 1:47 AM
That means fall back no more than 6 inches, and reform at the end.
If you'd fail even without the leadership modifiers, the unit breaks entirely.
So Warhammer: The Old World is... using a battle pulse model!
If you'd fail even without the leadership modifiers, the unit breaks entirely.
So Warhammer: The Old World is... using a battle pulse model!
..if it lost, though if it broke it ran. The newer Old World rules (...terminology!) have it that if you lose a combat round then one of three things can happen.
Pass the leadership test: Give Ground, fall back 2 inches.
Fail because of leadership modifiers: Fall Back in Good Order.
Pass the leadership test: Give Ground, fall back 2 inches.
Fail because of leadership modifiers: Fall Back in Good Order.
December 24, 2025 at 1:46 AM
..if it lost, though if it broke it ran. The newer Old World rules (...terminology!) have it that if you lose a combat round then one of three things can happen.
Pass the leadership test: Give Ground, fall back 2 inches.
Fail because of leadership modifiers: Fall Back in Good Order.
Pass the leadership test: Give Ground, fall back 2 inches.
Fail because of leadership modifiers: Fall Back in Good Order.
This reminds me of the way the various editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battles have handled close combat. In the older 8th Edition this depth factor was represented by both bonuses for ranks and also "Steadfast" (the deeper unit could only "lose combat by 0"), meaning it was less liable to break...
December 24, 2025 at 1:43 AM
This reminds me of the way the various editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battles have handled close combat. In the older 8th Edition this depth factor was represented by both bonuses for ranks and also "Steadfast" (the deeper unit could only "lose combat by 0"), meaning it was less liable to break...
None of those things is a monolith. If this adjusts the opinions of a hundred generals so that one of them goes from "yes" to "no" and others go from "yes" to "yes..." then that is a good thing. And this admin doesn't have a lot of legitimacy to spare.
December 24, 2025 at 1:35 AM
None of those things is a monolith. If this adjusts the opinions of a hundred generals so that one of them goes from "yes" to "no" and others go from "yes" to "yes..." then that is a good thing. And this admin doesn't have a lot of legitimacy to spare.
It means that people told to deploy anyway are more likely to look at that ruling and disagree. Not all. But some. That's a good thing, whether or not this goes to violence - and it makes this going to violence less likely, which is also a good thing.
December 24, 2025 at 1:32 AM
It means that people told to deploy anyway are more likely to look at that ruling and disagree. Not all. But some. That's a good thing, whether or not this goes to violence - and it makes this going to violence less likely, which is also a good thing.
And as minds change from things like this, you get people who would have otherwise agreed to disagree. Every lost percent is bad for an admin that doesn't have many of them to begin with.
Things like this aren't all-or-nothing. They're cumulative.
Things like this aren't all-or-nothing. They're cumulative.
December 24, 2025 at 1:31 AM
And as minds change from things like this, you get people who would have otherwise agreed to disagree. Every lost percent is bad for an admin that doesn't have many of them to begin with.
Things like this aren't all-or-nothing. They're cumulative.
Things like this aren't all-or-nothing. They're cumulative.
Trump can't run the entire Federal government himself. He's one person; legitimacy is what makes people go along with the government. Rulings like this erode the legitimacy of this Administration; he can certainly ignore rulings, but this one will change the mind of some people.
December 24, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Trump can't run the entire Federal government himself. He's one person; legitimacy is what makes people go along with the government. Rulings like this erode the legitimacy of this Administration; he can certainly ignore rulings, but this one will change the mind of some people.
The thing that this kind of "you have to earn my vote" misses is that IF you assume both parties have no ideology and are just doing whatever gets votes, THEN the surest way to pull BOTH parties left - for example - is that whichever side is leftier wins all the elections. Consistently.
December 24, 2025 at 1:21 AM
The thing that this kind of "you have to earn my vote" misses is that IF you assume both parties have no ideology and are just doing whatever gets votes, THEN the surest way to pull BOTH parties left - for example - is that whichever side is leftier wins all the elections. Consistently.
Oh, absolutely - one big and long platform is more capable than one smaller and shorter platform, and the cost of the command infrastructure is a one-off per ship. The thing I'm wondering about is how the tradeoffs look - basically how the Lanchester's Square scales here.
December 23, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Oh, absolutely - one big and long platform is more capable than one smaller and shorter platform, and the cost of the command infrastructure is a one-off per ship. The thing I'm wondering about is how the tradeoffs look - basically how the Lanchester's Square scales here.
Something I have to wonder is - how much more capability does length add, in terms of extra illuminators and extra CIWS?
Probably not enough as extra platforms, but I do wonder how the graphs look and whether a big long ship with 600 crew outperforms two Burkes with 600 crew the pair.
Probably not enough as extra platforms, but I do wonder how the graphs look and whether a big long ship with 600 crew outperforms two Burkes with 600 crew the pair.
December 23, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Something I have to wonder is - how much more capability does length add, in terms of extra illuminators and extra CIWS?
Probably not enough as extra platforms, but I do wonder how the graphs look and whether a big long ship with 600 crew outperforms two Burkes with 600 crew the pair.
Probably not enough as extra platforms, but I do wonder how the graphs look and whether a big long ship with 600 crew outperforms two Burkes with 600 crew the pair.
The way I always think of it is that VLS means that you can have (to a first approximation) your entire magazine available to fire at once.
December 22, 2025 at 7:15 PM
The way I always think of it is that VLS means that you can have (to a first approximation) your entire magazine available to fire at once.
Maybe Belisarius had been by and hoisted baskets of archers up to the top of a massive 19th century sailing ship with a 90 foot mast to fire down on the walls, and they decided - never again...
December 13, 2025 at 10:51 PM
Maybe Belisarius had been by and hoisted baskets of archers up to the top of a massive 19th century sailing ship with a 90 foot mast to fire down on the walls, and they decided - never again...
Oh, absolutely - it's entirely explicable given the context of the writer etc. But it does very much make you wonder if the pirates had 80 foot ladders.
December 13, 2025 at 10:00 PM
Oh, absolutely - it's entirely explicable given the context of the writer etc. But it does very much make you wonder if the pirates had 80 foot ladders.
The one that always struck me was Teirm in the Eragon books, which is a "small ocean town" with a wall 100 feet high and 30 thick.
This is to defend against pirate attacks.
This is to defend against pirate attacks.
December 13, 2025 at 9:03 PM
The one that always struck me was Teirm in the Eragon books, which is a "small ocean town" with a wall 100 feet high and 30 thick.
This is to defend against pirate attacks.
This is to defend against pirate attacks.
...that a point which takes a lot of words to write is a signal of "losing".
December 11, 2025 at 11:31 PM
...that a point which takes a lot of words to write is a signal of "losing".
As it happens, it's actually quite valuable to understand that what Dickens was arguing for, for the most part, happened. Living standards now are far, far better than they were in the 1840s; two days off a week and national public holidays are standard.
But it's a very strange thing to say...
But it's a very strange thing to say...
December 11, 2025 at 11:31 PM
As it happens, it's actually quite valuable to understand that what Dickens was arguing for, for the most part, happened. Living standards now are far, far better than they were in the 1840s; two days off a week and national public holidays are standard.
But it's a very strange thing to say...
But it's a very strange thing to say...
Same for clothing costs, for that matter - the price of clothes is crashing due to the industrial revolution, but clothing eight people is still a meaningfully more expensive task than four.
December 11, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Same for clothing costs, for that matter - the price of clothes is crashing due to the industrial revolution, but clothing eight people is still a meaningfully more expensive task than four.
The Cratchits being close to starving year-round doesn't actually dispute the idea that they're meaningfully wealthier than the average English family at this time. Barely feeding eight people is a lot more expensive than barely feeding four or six! Food costs are a big % of the budget then.
December 11, 2025 at 11:07 PM
The Cratchits being close to starving year-round doesn't actually dispute the idea that they're meaningfully wealthier than the average English family at this time. Barely feeding eight people is a lot more expensive than barely feeding four or six! Food costs are a big % of the budget then.
That ratio of workers to dependents is historically abnormal. It's also *much better*.
December 11, 2025 at 9:39 PM
That ratio of workers to dependents is historically abnormal. It's also *much better*.