None. Just to state the obvious. If you are in for the fight, you do know the rules, so you know that there is no divine authority coming for your support.
Neither party has provided empirical data, so it’s hard to say if I should agree with parent comment or grand-parent comment.
I think it’s likely that a third variable like stress level, political affiliation, or time spent outside more greatly correlates with long term environmental concern. Both of your pure-theory discussions don’t feel convincing.
It doesn’t make any assumptions about what happens after the bomb. All it does is propose the question: how else do you plan on surviving if a nuclear bomb is headed in your direction. Some people are just fine clocking out in that event. Others decided that whatever was on the other side of the explosion, that would prefer to be there than not.
I remember picking up a newspaper recently and being surprised at the cost and the amount of ads. I’m usually very anti-advertisement for paid services, but Apple is following a long tradition here.
Did they IPO when I wasn't looking? That is, what's different about this quarter versus last quarter? If the answer is "things are going worse this quarter than last quarter" then that's the nugget I was looking for/wondering about.
Who would be in the market to acquire them? This is the sort of thing I was wondering about. I had heard they were planning to IPO for a while, and thought perhaps that 'optimizations' like this might be an indication that things were heating up.
Sometimes people leave because their ambition is larger than the environment allows. I have a story of when I did just that.
Early in my career I joined a company and I knew from day one that it was going to be an awful experience. I knew the product was going to fail, and my team seemed unconcerned about this inevitability. I hadn’t realized this in the interview. I left after six months, and I spent all of them preparing myself and searching for the best possible next move. When I looked back two years later the company no longer offered the product I was working for, and every single member of my team also left. The experience was an expensive lesson in what things I should look for in a job interview.
While I agree I was influenced by confirmation bias to recall an anecdote that supports the blog’s argument, I don’t think it’s very meaningful to call out. It’s most important to consider confirmation bias if you are being overly supportive or dismissive of an argument, beyond what the evidence suggests. It would also be important to consider confirmation bias before making decisions.
Send an agent to an uninhabited star system and launch the rocks from there. Everyone that can see would see the energy expenditures, but they would get very little information other than the knowledge that a stealth based hostile civilization exists. This information would encourage everyone else to be less noisy.
The "stealthy" civilization has ceased to be stealthy, in this case. Launching an attack of any kind defeats the purpose, if anyone but the fully-wiped-out target can see. Your example suggests that a stealthy, hostile civilization isn't possible.
What would an observer see? It’s plausible that they would see an attack from an uninhabited solar system but not be able to find the home location of the attacker.
Ooh, that's the fun part. What (augmented) sense does the observer rely on? On what timescale? How was the attack coordinated? The attack surface of the operation - and the ability to trace it back to its origin - might be wider than you can plan for. "Plausible" is a shaky ground to be on with your civilization in the balance, if you suspect there's even a chance you can be discovered and have chosen to remain as hidden as possible heretofore. Dark Forest doctrine and hostility are incompatible, I think.
reply