• 9 Posts
  • 1.05K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • One of the stories about the US that I find inspirational is how, during the space race, NASA relied on various experts from somewhat unconventional places. It’s what I always think about at times like this, because it’s a snippet of what I consider to be genuine greatness, amongst all the propaganda and geopolitical awfulness.

    The first example is how the Apollo spacesuits were sewn by seamstresses from an underwear company. This was because they needed craftspeople skilled enough to be able to reliably cut fabric and sew seams within a margin of error of a fraction of a millimetre. Whereas in regular garment manufacturing, you can typically tear out incorrect stitches and try again, this wasn’t possible for the spacesuit, so they needed to be perfect first time; many of the fabrics they were working on were so cutting edge that they needed to be locked away in a safe when not working on them. Synthetic fabrics were still fairly new, and this partly explains why an underwear manufacturer had seamstresses who were up to this challenge — the group of sewists who worked on the spacesuit were probably among the most experienced people in the world at sewing synthetic fabrics, and this experience allowed them to be an active part of the design and manufacture process for the spacesuits.

    Another example from the same era is when NASA engineers were having difficulty getting the honeycomb insulating material they were using to adhere to the shuttle. This part of the program was happening near Seal Beach, in California, and when it was discovered that the local surfers were already experienced in using a material like this for their surfboards, NASA hired a bunch of the surfers to work with their engineers to figure out the problem. There’s a quote I absolutely adore from Donald Binns, a Project Engineer with North American Aviation[1]:

    “[The surfers] did a great job with it. The only downside of those guys was that when the surf was up, there was a big absentee problem — they were out there doing their trick.”

    I just find this incredibly sweet, because it captures both the strength and the difficulty of working with diverse skill sets. If ever there was greatness to be found in the US, we can see it in stories like this. I think this spirit of innovation has been lost over the years, due to the pressures of capitalism on individuals in particular.

    Edit: forgot to add link for quote citation

    [1]: Quote is from episode 1 of the 2008 documentary “Moon Machines”, accessible via the internet archive. Insulation section starts at around 16:45 https://archive.org/details/moon-machines/Moon+Machines+Part+1+The+Saturn+V+Rocket.mp4


    1. 1 ↩︎


  • I agree that the media landscape is a huge problem that won’t be directly solved by a different voting system, but I think that a changed voting system is a reasonable step towards solving the wider constellation of problems. A fairer voting system is a far more straightforward thing to solve than the media problem, which is probably better understood as a web of lots of different, but tightly linked problems.

    If we imagined a world where the media/propaganda problem were solved, then that wouldn’t make First Past The Post (FPTP) voting fair i.e. it would still be something we’d need to solve.

    Of course, this isn’t an either/or thing. I agree that we shouldn’t expect Cardinal voting (or any other alternative voting system) to magically solve this fucked up situation, because problems like media will still exist. However, I do think that FPTP is reinforcing the problem of media monopolies and nationalistic popularism. Even if implementing Cardinal voting (or similar) doesn’t directly improve the media problem, it would change the shape of the problem, such that we could tackle it on new fronts.


  • An article I read earlier on this included a quote from a (I think) public health official in the area, who said that it’s not the church to blame for the low vaccination rates, but that many of these people don’t regularly access healthcare. Knowing what I do about rural access to healthcare, it seems plausible that this isn’t attributable to anti-vax sentiment (though regular access to routine healthcare is a big help towards “innoculating” people against anti-vax ideas).

    If you’re not familiar with the cultural context of healthcare in rural America, a friend who is/was a rural doctor says that Dr Glaucomflecken’s short, humorous videos captures her experience remarkably well.




  • Eh, I think that sometimes one sets out in search of calm, and may learn, through meditation, that calm wasn’t what was needed.

    It reminds me of a concept/quote that I learned from a friend:

    " “A person should always be involved in Torah even she’lo lishmah, for from she’lo lishmah he will come to lishmah

    She’lo lishmah translates as “not for its own sake” and “lishmah” means for its own sake. So that line roughly means that “(even though you’d think that studying Torah is an intrinsically good thing (within a Jewish framework) that one should study it for its own sake), it’s actually okay to study Torah if you’re not doing it for its own sake (I.e as a means towards other, less noble ends), because being involved in Torah will inevitably transform the student into someone who appreciates it for its own sake”

    I’m not Jewish, but as someone who can be overly objective focussed, I really appreciate this way of thinking about things. It makes me reflect on what I think are intrinsically good things that have transformative potential even if one only acknowledges the superficial good parts of a thing. Meditation is probably the biggest example that comes to mind here


  • I do think you’re pissin in the wind, though.

    You may be right, but hope has gotten me much farther than defeatism has. And I’ve never been clinging so desperately to hope as now, when the US is being governed by such abominable lickspittles. (I confess that my previous comment about creativity in insults caused me to be a bit extra here).

    Besides, I’ve had plenty of times when I’ve been foolish and saying things that I didn’t realise were harmful. Humans are incredibly easily swayed by group norms, and this is often for the worse. However, I’ve found that there can be a huge impact from people saying “hey, not cool”. I don’t have to be someone who changes any minds, just someone who can feel like they tried, regardless of if the tides change in the direction I’m pushing.

    Plus, you’d actually be surprised at how many times I’ve had productive conversations on Lemmy from engaging earnestly with someone being aggressive. One of the reasons I like hanging out here is that I feel much more like I’m talking to people, in part because of how much more I see people apologising or being mature in dicey conversations. I certainly wouldn’t say that I have good results every time, but it’s often enough that it’s a key part of what I enjoy on this platform. Especially because I have enjoyed this wee conversation that you and I have had, independent of the person I was originally speaking to — you also count as one of the 'surprisingly pleasant" interactions that spring forth from challenging someone (especially as your first comment made me expect you to be far more adversarial than you have been).

    Small wins, but I’ll take them



  • Oh yeah, I can imagine; I feel like I would cringe if I rewatched those shows (especially as I was less visibly disabled back when I watched them the first time, and so hadn’t experienced random ableist slurs directed at me by strangers on the street).

    Whenever someone mentions that the 70s and 80s were 40-50 years ago, I usually feel uncomfortable at the inexorable passage of time and my place within it; however when I consider how far we’ve come since then though, across many different domains, I feel slightly heartened — when the reality is that progress happens a trickle at a time, I feel less small and overwhelmed at my own capacity to make change happen.


  • In the context of talking about people, that word has everything to do with the people who it has been used as a slur against, including, but not limited to “mentally handicapped”.

    OP was clearly using the phrase as a derogatory term for people, and the only dictionary sense that fits there is the one that has ableist allusions. If the context of use were different, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For example, I wouldn’t have a problem with the phrase “The PCM responds by retarding ignition timing—either until the knock disappears, or until maximum spark retard is reached.” or “The Friar’s alibi finds him at the right place but always a moment in retard”.

    That you’re taking such a literal reading here makes me wonder whether your comment was made in bad faith such that I shouldn’t bother wasting my time, but I’m hoping that there could actually be some meaningful dialogue here (after all, there’s a reason why I didn’t just report OP and move on). It might not affect your opinion, but I have direct experience of the r-slur that has been directed at me (not infrequently) when I am people read visibly disabled. I’m not “mentally handicapped”, but as a word, it has grown far beyond it’s original context of use. I say this to give context on my original comment — I’m not just going about tone policing people for fun: I commented what I did because it hurts to see that word thrown at people when part of what makes it effective as an insult is its attachment to people like me.

    Once upon a time, the r-slur was actually considered one of the more appropriate words to describe people who are intellectually disabled. If I were alive in that era, I’d have likely been left to rot in an institution, and allowed only a fraction of the independence I’m able to have nowadays. But times change, and so does our understanding of the baggage that words pick up.

    To draw an analogy, it wouldn’t be appropriate to call a black person the n-word, on the basis that it derives from the Spanish word for “black”. That etymology isn’t wrong, but it’s still missing the forest for the trees.


  • Take your pick — There’s a whole world of insults that don’t involve punching down at marginalised groups. I realise that may sound hyperbolic, but I say it because I’m someone who is sometimes the recipient of that slur, and it’s jarring to see it in spaces like this. I know that in this case, it wasn’t at me, but a key part of why insults like this carry weight is because of the comparison it makes to people like me (even if only implicitly).

    My hope is that we might be more creative with our insults when solidarity is our best weapon against these assholes





  • I agree with much of what you say, but I was confused because the judge blocking the executive order isn’t the same as trying to make the administration do a thing; it’s more like telling the people at the NIH “ignore what that guy just said, business as usual (for now, at least)”. If that’s the case, I’m unclear on why things are still blocked up at the NIH. Because of this, I took the radical step of reading the linked article.

    In many ways, it didn’t help; I suppose it makes sense that one of the harms of someone willfully breaking the rules is that it becomes harder to discern what those rules actually are (were?). However, one of the lawyers quoted in the article suggests that the NIH officials who are currently carrying out the blocked order may be in contempt of court. This makes sense to me, based on the understanding I outlined above. But wait, there’s more.

    After the block continued to be de facto in place despite being blocked de jure, the judge issued another ruling to try to force the Trump administration to rescind the order. This is concerning because as you highlight, this Judge has no recourse to enforce this judgement. Whereas before, the blocking of the order was the Judge speaking to the NIH officials, those top officials have seemingly gone “no, we’re not listening to you, we’re listening to him”. As I have said, they may be in contempt of court by doing this, but that’s not relevant when we’re looking at urgently ensuring that years of research isn’t ruined by this. By issuing a new ruling to try to force Trump to rescind the order, the judge has been forced to step outside of normal procedure in a way where they’re doomed to fail; it’s fairly obvious that Trump will go “no, make me”, and then fuck knows what the judge is going to do.

    I think the judge knows this too, but what the fuck can they do (in their role as a judge) in this situation? Oh man, it’s so fucked.