When Both Countries Are Super Cheap and Use Fabian Like Strategy in War

When both countries like Fabian like strategies, war can gradually get very silly. Current war between Russia and Ukraine is just such war.

It begun rather normal with armed columns rolling the roads and taking control of places, but then gradually feel lower and lower.

Ukraine's Bayraktars, equipped with Hellfire missiles were making, rust coffins out of expensive Russian equipment, equipped with thermobaric weapons and such. Russian solution: replace expensive equipment with inexpensive one and make Ukraine expend all its good ammunition against these, then bring back good weapons and win. A big brain plan, that did not age well.

Ukraine soon figured that they do not need good ammunition against cheap weapons Russia begun to send against them. Sure, you need a Hellfire to take down expensive thermobaric artillery that can fire from a very safe distance, but against BTR, WWII era tanks like T-34 and the like, something cheap like $500 Amazon drone with explosives attached by a duct tape would work just as fine. So, Amazon drones took to the sky as Hellfire and Javelin was kept in storage in case Russia will bring back its thermobaric weapons again.

Russian solution: go even cheaper. Several years into war Russia started to send soldiers on literal dirt bikes, vespas or even sent them on food with explosives attached to them in hope to beat Ukraine in cost of war competition. Meanwhile Ukraine started making their own home designed drones that are even cheaper than Amazon ones to make sure they are never out of ammunition.

By now most fighting has long gone from the battlefield to twitter. Words and insults are cheap, and both sides are very generous with dishing these at their opponents as they sit and wait until the other side gives up or gets abandoned by allies or runs out of ammunition or soldiers or both. 

As much as it is offensive and insulting to the soldiers involved, the war gradually devolved into a clown show. And Russia carries most blame for it going this way.

I can only imagine Americans and Europeans looking at this mess rather puzzled. 

That reminds me of the time when in Fate/Zero Gilgamesh looked at heroic spirits trying to defeat the monster, caster summoned. "Sure, they are mongrels, but they were supposed to be heroic spirits..."

Well as things stand the whole war process does not move anywhere so a Korean style ceasefire is the only solutions.

On Machiavelli's Prince

 

Nicollo Machiavelli is often seen as being ruthless and cynical person. His name is even associated with a mercurial, cunning and shrewd behavior.

That however is rather far from the truth. These stereotypes hardly do justice to this man, whose writings are above all sober and practical rather than radical and immoral. However, that fails to take into consideration a reality of the world he lived in. Sure, every so often he advocates things that can be considered immoral or unethical, but there are far and in between. Most of his advice is rather sober and benign even.

To begin with, I would like to point out that Machiavelli lived in rather dangerous world of renaissance Italy, where assassinations were commonplace. After witnessing this over and over again, he concluded that most of these deaths were completely preventable. If only people in power thought a little bit ahead, they could easily see that certain decisions would lead towards these regrettable outcomes. 

Princes, who were meant to rule for live, in reality barely lasted a few years in office before being assassinated by one of another aggrieved party, whom they managed to wrong while in office. That typically followed by the raise of a new prince who would take over from a deceased one, deal with perpetrators, then proceed to make all the same mistakes that got their predecessor assassinated and in turn end up being assassinated by someone else they wronged.

Machiavelli personally thought that a republican government is superior to that assassination galore he was witnessing, but he was also a practical man with realistic outlook on reality. He understood that princes are there to stay and it is wiser to figure out a way to work with them, rather than sit on moral high horse and perpetrate the same cycle of bloodshed over and over again. 

Modern dictators would do well to head his approach as democracy, internet and popular sovereignty is here to stay and trying to beat it with censorship, blocking the internet and riot police will do them no good, but they will not listen until revolution will kick them out. Even afterwards they would prat about how another squad of riot police would have tipped it in their favor and how Americans are plotting to destroy them with their internet and freedom of speech.

Machiavelli's advice to princes was mostly practical. It was meant to prevent them from aggravating any of their subjects to such an extent, that they would resort to assassination. It was not the ideal vision of perfect governance, but of a one that actually works. Perfect is enemy of the good and Machiavelli understood it. Instead of talking about how politicise should be government in a perfect world, he focused on how they could be government better in a real world he lived in. Nowadays his advice is too much of a real politics for some more idealistic people, but it actually work and princes who heed his advice did last longer and sometimes managed to die a natural death.

This advice is not purely historical. Even if our much more peaceful world politicians are sometimes assassinated in office. Thus, Machiavellian advice on how not get assassinated in office is as relevant as ever. After all you are but one bad decision away from being replaced by your keys to power. CGPGery video Rules for Rulers is modern take on the same principles that guided Machiavelli in writing his Il Principe. Not how world should work but how it actually works.

Despite sound advice on how best to govern, people keep repeating the old mistakes that lead us to assassinations revolutions and such. When your country has a revolution, that is not because CIA have organised it, it is because you displeased your keys to power and they have gathered to remove you.

How We can Integrate Metric and Imperial Systems

 

After getting thoroughly tired of dealing with traditional measuring systems, Europeans have agreed to replace it with universal international system that will be standardized and simple to use. They created such system and world lived happily thereafter. Right?

Turns out no. A few countries continue to use traditional 'imperial' units. One of them is very important one, the United States. Because of the US these imperial units crawling back into Europe, in form of computer screens, that are measured in inches and other things.

As much as some might want to lambast imperial system and Americans who are still using it as silly, they do stick to it and thus world has two rather incompatible systems, that make conversion between them or even within imperial system a nightmare.

That however does not have to be the case, as there actually exist one very simple solution and its name is a tonne, a metric tonne to be precise. Metric tonne is a former traditional imperial unit, that made its way into a metric system, by adjusting its value to be precisely 1000 kg, thus essentially becoming equivalent of a Megagram, but with a shorter more traditional name.

Metric tonne does not have the same amount as tradition tonne, either of them. The US short tonne is lighter than metric tonne while British long tonne is heavier than a metric tonne. Even before metric tonne was introduced to further confuse things, they were already confusing to begin with.

Here lies a solution, instead fighting over weather imperial or metric units are better, we can simply introduce the metric version of traditional units and end debate with that. While at first glance that looks like unnecessary duplication, it is more useful and valuable than initially apparent. 

To begin with traditional units are more natural, people used them for a long time, they have catchy names with character to them. They make sense in a rule of thumb sort of way, it's easier to estimate with them. One inch feels like smallest among that actually matter, meanwhile one centimeter is just too small to care. You can market an increase in couple of inches as people can see rule of thumb difference between them. You cannot do the same with centimeters as one cm difference looks more like an adjustment then an increase. 

On the other hand, as example with ton shows that exact values of traditional units do not matter. Even before metric system there were different values of the same units used by different countries, so nothing wrong comes with creating another one or adjusting a value of a traditional unit to match that of a nearest metric unit. 

Inches matter not in their precise to the decimal point value to centimeters but in approximate rule of thumb way. Nothing wrong will come from adjusting value of an inch to be exactly 2.5 centimeters. Such metric inch will be easy to scale and convert into metric system. 4 inches makes one decimeter and 40 inches one meter. Who says we cannot have both traditional units and easy conversions at the same time. We actually can.

We can do the same with other traditional units. Metric pound can be exactly 0.5 kilogram or 500 grams. Metric mile can be exactly 1.5 kilometers, Metric nautical mile exactly 2 kilometers. One metric foot exactly 30 cm or 3 decimeters. One metric ounce is exactly 30 grams. Metric yard can be equivalent of square meter. Metric furlong exactly 200 meters. And metric gallon can be exactly 5 liters. 

That will keep close approximations of traditional units around while at the same time allow for an easy conversion to a metric system and back. Best of both worlds.

Just like that metric tonne example allows us to solve a complex imperial vs metric system debate and intergrade both system into a single one. 

Trump Should Build a Wall to End the War in Ukraine

 

Negotiations to end war in Ukraine again stalled. Russia wants Ukraine to withdraw from the most effective defensive position they have in the country because its residents are one of few pro-Russian people left in Ukraine. Ukraine refuses to do so because they have good reason to suspect that once defensive line is in Russian hands, they will roll over the rest of the country unopposed. Break through does not look in sight.

However, there is a clever way out of this seamlessly unsolvable predicament, and it involves one of Trump's signature policies: building a wall.

To be exactly precise Trump should offer both sides that Americans will come down to Ukraine and build a series of defensive fortifications that will separate conflicting siders from each other. The Wall can mostly follow existing line of contact, with exception of Donetsk Oblast where it will follow its administrative border with Dnipro and Kharkiv oblasts instead.

If Russia does not have any further ambitions beyond Donbas, such solutions will suit them. Regardless of what Moscow planning, it will be hard for them to argue against this initiative without looking dishonest. As a bonus for Russia, Ukrainian troops still fighting in Donbas should be required to fly a flag different from regular troops stationed in other parts of Ukraine, possibly an UPA flag. That Russian troops have better idea who they are allowed to attack and whom not.

Ukraine should not be against it either. Sure, the wall leaves certain parts of country outside of its protection, but it's better than nothing and more fortifications is always better than less. Once wall is completed it will push Ukrainian troops towards withdrawing behind it. While it will not require Ukrainian troops to withdraw voluntarily from Donbas as Russia wants, the very fact that is it there and there is protection behind the wall and Russian shelling outside of it, will push Ukrainian troops towards withdrawing.

All security guarantees can also be tied to the wall. Americans will only interfere if Russia crosses the wall into Kyiv direction but will do nothing if Russians stay east of the wall. The wall will provide certainty to each side; Ukrainians will know it's safe west of the wall and Russians will know to not cross it in the western direction if they do not want Americans to bomb Moscow.

Wall and its protection should also extend towards existing Ukrainian borders with Russia and Belarus. We do not want Russia to go around these restrictions by attacking where there is no wall or going through Belarus again.

Agreement on wall should also come with a partial ceasefire in all oblasts but Donetsk one. While it will not stop the war completely, it will certainly reduce it in scale and fighting will gradually draw down.

Perfect is enemy of the good, while a complete ceasefire is out of reach for now, a solution that will reduce fighting, damage and losses for both sides is certainly possible. A Wall in Ukraine is this solution. 

Russian Latin Alphabet

 

Romanisation of Russian language is often prone to some rather weird letter combination to express sounds that are not present in English language. This fact makes idea of adopting Latin alphabet for Russian language seem like stupid idea.

However, this does not have to be the case. By borrowing some ideas from Western Slavic alphabet such as Czech or Serbo-Croatian one can create a very simple and elegant form of Latin Russian Alphabet that is much simpler and more streamlined than native Cyrillic one.

All problematic letters can easily be spelled using just two simple tricks: use of coron (a little tick above the letter and use of 'J' in front of vowels.

'J' is pronounced like in German, Czech or other Eastern European languages, that is like 'Y'. This letter will be used frequently so it has to be easy to write be easy on eyes. 'J' is much more suitable for this role compared to 'Y'. 

Using 'J' also frees up 'Y' for hard fricative 'E' sound that is different from German 'J'. Using the same character for two distinct sounds creates confusion and this solution eliminates it.

In addition to being a short 'I', 'J' is used in front of every other vowel to create a softer version of the vowel. 'A' and 'Ya' (traditional romanisation) are treated as distinct letters in Russian language, but arguably one can call 'Ya' a composite sound of short 'I' and 'A'. If you apply this logic to other complex Russian vowels they all can be written in the same consistent manner of short 'I' in front of another vowel, that will reduce a total number of letters in the alphabet and make writing simpler. 

Because of that short 'I' will be used frequently and thus a simple easy to write and read character is needed to represent it, hence, I chose 'J' rather than 'Y'. Since 'I' is used for full 'I' it's only fitting that a similarly looking letter represent its modified short form. 

Second is use of coron (a small tick above the letter) to represent consonants that are absent in Standard Latin alphabet. People familiar with Skoda car brand can notice a small tick above letter 'S'. This tick is a standard feature of Czech language that is used to denote that this letter reads 'Sh' rather than 'S'. Czech language uses this coron above other letters, including 'C' in the very name of their country. I too used coron for extra consonants that exist in Russian language and used to be written as complex diphthongs like 'Zh', 'Ch', 'Ts' and even horrendous quad-thong 'Shch'. 'Shch' can now be written with only two corons above simple 'S', 'S' with single coron is 'Sh'.

Finally, as a bonus I brought 'X' into alphabet to write words that normally use 'KS' in Russian. 'Max' and 'Xenia' will finally be written like in Western languages instead of writing them as 'Maks' and 'Ksenia'.

Overall, I think the alphabet I created is not only better than traditional romanisation but even better than traditional Cyrillic alphabet. Sure, it might take time to get used to it, but it is certainly more convenient way to write Russian than what is currently used. 

How Life Changes as Human Settlements Grow

Volunteering dies out as community grows from small town into big city, just like baby teeth fall of as a person grows

Take a village or a small town (5k people something), there are hardly enough people to for a town this small to function as a community so everyone there is valuable. Towns only doctor, mechanic and grocer are self-explanatory, but in a town this small even a local village idiot who only does stupid shit is valuable as a source of entertainment as without him there will be none.

In a town like this every person lost is a significant material loss. Regardless weather person died or moved to real city, the function they used to fulfil is no longer fulfilled and everyone loses as a result.

That is why in small towns people volunteer to help each other out. That keeps people happy and prevents them from leaving for a better place. Just as much as you help out others, one day you yourself will need help and they in turn will be there to help you out. You both benefit from this arrangement. That is just how life in small towns is.

In big city is polar opposite. There are plenty of people to do all sorts of work or fulfil any role community could possibly need or want. If a city doctor dies the city will not go without healthcare as there are plenty of other doctors to fill the void. If anything, other doctors will be happy that there is no competition, and they will make more money. Village idiots are handled by police as there is real entertainment and we do not want any disruptions of our peace.

In big city everyone is replaceable and no one will miss you if you are gone (moved out or dead). Sure, we mourn dead in cities, but it's more of a social obligation then a real tragedy. What is valuable is not a person but their possessions. That is why inheritance battles are so fierce.

City is not short on people but short on space, assets and such. A nice home and a piece of land in a good location is an asset so valuable people will literarily kill each other over it. In a small town no one will care if you just build your home on some empty spot next to someone, they will even help you build. However, in cities every piece of land is already owned by someone and used in certain way. If you want any you have to pay.

People in cities do not help each other precisely because other people are not an asset that makes community, but competitors for that limited space and resources that are still available. The bigger the city is, the more nuisance other people are. That is why people call NYC rotten apple or a saying that Moscow does not believe in tears. It's a concrete jungle.

Many other things, including political views and even birth rates do stem from this basic reality of life in the country or city. Country people have more kids precisely because they have both spaces to populate and community to build, thus every new member is an asset rather than liability. On the other hand, city dwellers who struggle to afford housing do not breed. If they themselves have no place to call their own, where their kids will go. It's not a psyop or Zionist Masonic Illuminati conspiracy to displace White people, just a simple socio-economic reality.

This development is unidirectional. Country will always want more services and better community and that means more people. Because of that they will always breed and attract immigration. Their towns will grow into cities. As they grow, they will undergo changes in the way people function and see themselves and society around them. That is why once town reaches certain size, volunteering gradually disappears as new reality makes it unnecessary.

In the same way people who grew up in country can move into city but people who grew up in city cannot move into country. They can move into smaller city, but not that much smaller than where they originally from. City provides certain level of support for every inhabitant and people cannot reasonably function without it. Pol Pot experiments in Cambodia clearly show us that.

Since people's minds are reflexive, they tend to keep the same thinking pattern they established in their youth. Such conservatism is suitable in stable community, whose size remains the same, but if the town of 100k grew into 2m city as you grew older, then it's far too outdated. We have so many disagreements between different generations precisely because life changed a lot compared to 60 or 40 years ago. Old ways no longer work, yet old people still push them onto young people. That will not end well.

Humans breeding or not comes not from wealth, education, tech development, and such but from a simple fact of availability of space. When space to populate is available humans instinctively breed more, when it's all full no space left, humans do not breed. People who spam twitter with population decline tweets should instead figure us out Planet Two because without it birth rates will not go up.

How and Why Christian Right Have Created Woke Left and Cancel Culture

 

Modern political discourse is often defined as a conflict between Christian Right and Liberal Woke Left. Woke left often proposes some radical "progressive" idea and Christian Right immediately refute it. 

As Christian Right refute another woke idea, Christian Nationalists never fail to present themselves as voice of reason against dangerous radicals that seek to destroy West and White Civilization. At first glance it sounds alright. Most Woke politicians and ideas are indeed insane and destructive. One can hardly see Woke as anything other than a clown show. If that is what Woke really believes. it is only reasonable to oppose Woke. 

However, does opposing Woke make Christian Right your friend and natural ally? At first glance it does. Our political system often works with two parties, so we get used to the idea of choosing one option out of two available. In this case if one opposed to Woke, one should side with its enemies, right?

However Christian Right is full of their own bullshit. The more you look at them, the more you think that they are their own clown show, only marginally less insane than Woke they so oppose. One would even question if supporting them is really choosing the lesser of two evils.

However, if you think outside of the box, you can question the whole premise of lesser of two evils. There are plenty of 3rd party politicians with actually sane agenda, like Andrew Yang. Why not support them instead of choosing whether you prefer a clown show on the left of the right? 

However, why there are clowns on both sides of pollical divide? If you think about it even further, then you will notice that Christian Right and Woke have a lot more similarities that initially apparent. Sure, they theoretically stand for opposing points of view, but arguments they both made are surprisingly similar. Both slap their opponents with weird and insulting labels, call them stupid and more. Both misquote sources they hardly even read, much less understand. Both scaremonger audience with impending social collapse and such. Far too many similarities between two bitter rivals.

Could it be that Christian Right and Woke are really one and the same?

The answer is Yes and here I will explain why?

Christian Right is of course the original ideology. Their Christian ideology is outdated and sound ridiculous to a modern person. No one in their sane mind will ever support something like this.

If all Christians were as stupid as their ideology, it would have long died out or existed solely on the margins of society with no more than 0.1% support.

However not all Christians are stupid, or if they really are, they have found themselves a really smart allies in form of the rich who want lower taxes and regulations. If Christians themselves could not understand it, the rich clearly understood that no one will support Christian clown show for the face value of their ideas.

However, that does not mean nothing could be done about it. If they could device an ideology that is more insane, contrarian, and absurd than Christian Nationalism, then they can present Christian Nationalism as a lesser of two evils. With ideology like this they could convince public to, if not support Christian Nationalism for what it stands, at least support it because it's better than the alternative. 

Having figured out that much, Christian Nationalists went on to create Woke and Cancel culture as a straw man opponent for themselves. Ever since we see the clown shit storm show, where one clows oppose other for being more insane than they are, and even taking sides in this circus battle.

Woke claims to be lefty, socialist, progressive, liberal and many more things. In reality its none of these things. Woke is merely a strawman psy op for Christian Right. They are no ally for actual liberals or leftists. Woke ideology is deliberately engineered to be so toxic that it will destroy anyone who will associate with it. Thus, any liberals or leftists are making terrible mistake by associating or accepting Woke as part of their ideologies, movements and parties.

Instead, true liberals and even socialists should clearly refute Woke as having nothing to do with them or their ideology, social movement and parties. Failure to do so will result in losing voters and supporters to ideologies that oppose Woke, such as radical right.

We have already seen it happening twice. Donald Trump won against both Hillary Clinton and Camalla Harris because both were too Woke and that repealed voters. In contrast non-Woke Biden could beat Trump simply because he is not Woke.

It is pretty clear that Woke repeal voters and make people support those who oppose it. Because of that every genuine liberal, social democratic and leftist movement should make a decisive effort to disassociate themselves from Woke and refute them as fake leftists who secretly work for Christian Right. Failure to do so will see liberals continue to lose votes to the insane radicals on the right.