the-printer

This is a valid criticism, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily the author’s fault.

This implies that every state constitution has provisions similar to the ones in Montana’s state constitution that were used to uphold the decision and have already given it the distinction of precedence. The ruling on its own is not legally binding on other states, they can refer to it at their own discretion.

This isn’t a question of the decision’s influence in the future or its likelihood. It’s about the decision’s effect today. Either way, as far as I could find, the text of the ruling does nothing to convey concern for the measurable effects that Montana’s coal industry could have on you or your children elsewhere. That’s what we’re talking about.

By law, your self interests were not referred to at all. The "good news" is that your country is governed by self interests, and I’m inclined to believe that The Powers That Be ® are catering to yours this time around.

And people wonder how Jim Crow became a household name…

This isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.

asynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.

Appealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.

OP’s comment is better suited to be taken in reference to the amount of domains banned rather than the “secrecy” of the list. I’m interested in how users are worse off with regards to anything by not knowing what sites are banned.

What’s happening in Baltimore shouldn’t merely be attributed to COVID-19. There’s evidence that their problems have existed way before it.

From 2021

> A Baltimore high school student failed all but three classes over four years and almost graduated near the top half of his class with a 0.13 GPA, according to a local report.

Emphasis added.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/baltimore-student-fails-classes-t...

The state is obviously experiencing a prolonged educational crisis that’s going underreported.

> Seibel: I’m thinking of the preface to SICP, where it says, “programs must be written for people to read and only incidentally for machines to execute.”

I’m wondering if the initial statement in SICP spoke from a time that was similar to a 1977 McGraw-Hill textbook, “Introduction to Computers”, that I picked up from a thrift store recently. A significant portion chapter on developing computer programs is dedicated to methodology; planning, the development life cycle, systems design, instructing users, processing methodology. The next chapter is about flowcharts and tables.

I mention all this to point out how intrigued I am by what looks like the emphasis that was placed back then on clarity from the human’s perspective, be it programmer, user or anyone else involved in the software’s development and use.

Another thing that’s interesting to me is how old code like Fortran looks like it’s made up of mostly just words, compared to modern languages I’ve looked at that use a lot of abbreviations and special characters.

My knowledge of programming and its history is excruciatingly minimal, but this blog post and that excerpt sort of remind me of what I just mentioned. I’m not sure why exactly, or if there’s any credence to it.

I think what happened is that during the 90s/early 00s the internet was too immature to be affected by the garbage/attention economy campaigns that took place in more refined mediums like television for example. The internet was not yet a part of mass media. It was more like a “walled garden” of a different kind in spite of how open it was within the walls.

Watching the internet change may feel different to some people because the relationship that they’ve had with it is more intimate than with their television. What we’re dealing with now is just the intended development of media in society courtesy of The Powers That Be ®.

In hindsight it was inevitable.

Interesting piece. I don't think what we're dealing online with is anything new per se. Neil Postman expressed a take similar to yours when he said, "Information has become a form of garbage" in 1992. Things appear to be developing as intended; encourage the general public to develop an appetite for junk, make its consumption highly accessible with financial incentives for its makers, blind the public of any notion as to what the meaning of "food" is at all, profit.

The graver thing to ponder over is that the distinction between garbage and what isn't garbage is progressively becoming obscured to many.

> The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm#

I apologize for the long replies. I promise you it doesn’t feel like so much is being typed in the text editing box before I post.

I'm not ashamed to say that my belief is that Islam is inherently great. I'm sure you have your own set of convictions that are guiding your arguments.

My view in this thread is that the perception of the Islamic conquests in Europe are exceptional in the way that they may be perceived due the differences between the Muslim world and Western Europe during that period of time and that this perception may carry over and affect how the relationship between the Muslim world and Western Europe is viewed today, especially within the context of what the book Stealing from the Saracens appears to be about and how society may respond to that as well. These differences were initially predicated theologically and more than likely had an influence on how any similarities between the Islamic states and Western European nations were interpreted by them.

Through literary means we can contextualize certain events like what we're discussing in a way that makes the differences less stark and open the door for a more conclusive, reconciliatory perspective but the efficacy of that is subject to the realities of the living human experience. Polarization is a natural characteristic of society. "Social evolution" can do much to make large groups of people alike, but it can also magnify the ways that they aren't. History and the components that make it are as well-retained in the human experience itself as it is within literature and "the pens are lifted and the ink is dried".

If this disturbs you, well...this is the world that we share. Enjoy.

> I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects.

Yeah, thank you! That's what I was trying to get across.

> from a scripture point of view, they are both Abrahamic religions, use a book as the center of wisdom, buildings to house worship.. but let's set that huge likeness aside.

If we were to refer to scripture we would find that the concept of an "Abrahamic religion" is non-existent, and the presence of scripture itself as a primary fundamental source and houses of worship do little by way of comparing any religion.

The rest of the similarities that you list are useful, but it's unlikely that the valuable context that can be gleaned from any sociopolitical similitudes in retrospect were prioritized when the events in question were taking place. The glaring theological differences between Islam and Christianity were the defining factor as to why the Muslim conquests began at all. We can view sociopolitical similarities as non-trivial, but in respect to the initial impetus (the spread of the Islam), they become trivial. This isn't to discount any likenesses that can be found across certain structures within these regions or how these structures were affected as regions spread and interacted with each other, but the significance varies and how each region interpreted these similarities at that time likely varied as well. In the context of the Islamic conquests as a whole, the belief itself is paramount in beginning any discussions about them.

The point that I'm trying to make is that on the whole, i.e. beginning from as early as 629, how the Islamic conquests can be perceived is exceptional compared to other conflicts that took place involving Western European nations, in particular the conflicts that took place between Western European nations themselves. This exception could be compared to that of how the Islamic conquests of European territories could be perceived from the perspective of the Islamic states as opposed to the early conflicts that took place in Syria/Yemen, for example.

"Likeness" is equally nuanced, is often forsaken for opposing motives and is worthless unless it is predicated by shared principles, especially at the scale that we are discussing.

Guilt isn't being ascribed to the victims or casualities. It's being ascribed to the Europeans who hold prejudices against Islam and are alive today. If you aren't one of those people, there isn't much left to critique until you read the book.

We can count beans over whether it's appropriate to address how Islam entered the region in a PR piece, but I think we'd just be waxing historian in traditional HN fashion.

After some thought, it's obvious that it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire (I failed in my part to recognize this earlier). I can understand how it can be interpreted that the book is advertised in a way that compels some of its Western readership to assume an implicit guilt or adversarial role as "Islamophobes" who denigrate the influence that the Islamic world had on its land. I myself was skeptic of this tone at first, but as a whole it simply isn't the responsibility of this particular book to cater to readers who want the history of the Islamic conquests from the perspective of the West (as the colonized) to be brought forth aside from the architectural influences that the conquests had. War and colonization involve more than just the bloodshed of the belligerents. For us to even focus on the just the event of conquest at the expense of what occurred afterward does a historical and cultural injustice. The Islamic conquests are in fact unique in this regard, as opposed to say, the Belgian Congo.

The irony here is that I can make the same accusation of "self-flagellation" to those who are desperate to be recognized as "the colonized" (in this instance by a cultural "other", in a sense) as I can make against people who woefully lament their history as "the colonizers". The former accusation feels even more apt because if so much lengths have to be taken to recall this history, maybe that's indicative of the significant steps that the region (as a collective) has made in progressing past that stage of their legacy. Of course I feel that there are some exemptions.

But on the whole, as I've said elsewhere, the Western world (as a hegemonic region that claims the most prosperous nations materially) in a way has lost the "narrative privilege" of the periods where they didn't have the upper hand being popularly discussed.Of course there are exceptions to this, but the Islamic conquests primarily have the distinction of being carried out by nations who if not foreigners themselves were driven by motives—the Islamic faith—entirely foreign to the invaded lands. It's not that there's anything to erase or twist, my hunch is that aside from specific historical discussions like this one, it's not worth mentioning.

You made a really good point. I don't mean to delve into whether this burden is entirely fair for all, but rather I'm pointing out the fact that this burden can be imposed due to 1) The US being a global hegemon and 2) The extent to which slavery is woven into the cultural narrative of the country, to the point where on one end it's assumed become almost a poignant/macabre element of pop culture that spans well beyond its abolishment. This imposed burden is evident even in the form "antiracism" with regards to a collective pronouncement of guilt [1].

Maybe I could have done better in making my point if I had said:

    The Western world, in particular the United States, bears [a greater] burden [in respect to] their relationship with slavery [because it is] more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. 

I'm not sure if "more well-documented" is a good phrase grammatically either but that's besides the point right now. My intention was to point out that a burden can be established against the US more so than other nations when the legacy of slavery is discussed. But my perspective is biased as an American myself, so maybe this isn't the case elsewhere. Either way, the fact of the matter is that to this day slavery remains a blight on American history. The conundrum is that, as I made note of, who doesn't have a history with slavery? The two points that I brought up were an attempt to address why this blight is so much discussed in the US at the expense of other regions.

[1]: A concept that I find regressive, for the same concern that I feel you show when you say, "Where does that leave the culture, practices, efforts and lineage of the people in the USA that were against [slavery] at every stage?" In that it engenders a sort of "self-flagellatory" performance that call upon entire nations and peoples to take a part in it. My initial concern over Stealing from the Saracens was that it possessed qualities such at this. But as I engage in different threads here and think more about it, that likely isn't the case with this book, hopefully.

I suppose that the reason that it's spoken about less is because there isn't as much as an incentive to do so outside of discussions such as this, especially when compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade for example.

The Western world, in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship with slavery being more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. This is likely a consequence of their predominance. There may just not be much for most people to talk about with regards to the effects that the slave trade in historically Islamic countries had on England because they traded slaves too. Even if the Trans-Atlantic method didn't involve piracy (it appears that "Adam Smith's invisible hand" was more effective), the modern view of slavery for most is that all forms of it are terrible. Not only that, but at a glance, the Western world has virtually shorn itself of its history as an enslaved people, save a few beautiful buildings left in their formally subjugated territories according to Stealing from the Saracens .

Anyhow, slavery as a human institution is something that just about every society has both experienced and facilitated. The institution itself is more broadly associated with the West as slavers rather than the enslaved and most people are likely unaware or are indifferent to their history as the latter due to how well-know their involvement is as the former.

On second thought, maybe the book from the article is worth a read after all. Authors usually have no control over press releases on their book. She deserves a fair shake.

As a major left-leaning outlet, you would expect the NYT to be capable of courting the ear of the greater Hip-hop community (mainstream artists, executives, critics, etc). This article merely glosses over the role that rap music plays in the attachment being a status symbol.

With the genre celebrating its “50th anniversary” this year, I imagine that a lot of outlets are highlighting the cultural significance that the genre has over communities, many which are more vulnerable to gun violence than others. This seems like a missed opportunity at trying to hold them accountable to a reasonable extent.

This makes a lot of sense. It’s hard enough finding communities in real life as it is and the internet is at scale where the ease of social networking doesn’t exist like it did in the past.

At this point I think most people who been online long enough have a network that’s been sustained across many different platforms. Federation is great for these sorts of people when it’s used in the way that you’ve described.

Centralization still has its use as a meeting ground. The “public square” concept can still apply, but the thing is that it’s unhealthy to spend all of your time there and private/controlled gatherings are people can get a break and cultivate more unique bonds. Mastodon is interesting because it gives people the option to have both (public square or private hall).

Please share it if you can recall. As someone who just figured out what Base-2 and Base-10 meant, I’m eager for all sorts of Mathematica.

> If you told me that this was, rather than someone's personal blog, a piece of first-person 'Frasier' fanfiction, I'd probably buy that.

One can argue that ±65% of blogging is first-person fan fiction.

You know, I don’t share your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe in the least, but your response indicates to me that the angle taken by the author (which reeks of the kind of cultural self-flagellation that is en vogue these days) could do less to “challenge Islamophobia” as the press release says, than it can to embolden it or at least disturb people who would have otherwise benefited from the history without being force-fed a narrative that could be expressed differently (I’m not accusing you of Islamophobia, by the way).

My knee-jerk impression is that this book is using Islamic history as a pawn in today’s “culture wars”. It will enlighten few, and serve as material for the in-group who is most likely to purchase it to pontificate over at cocktail parties.

I get that, but even figuratively, it's a relatively harmless opinion that can only achieve as much by way of influence or control as readers are willing to allow the anonymous commenter to hold over them. There's more to learn if we confront the opinion by its premises (as shown by other responses to the comment) than by subjective moral grounds.

I’m taken aback by the idea of the integrity of the human spirit being kept together by songwriting and other artistic practices that AI threatens.

If anything, AI is proving how trivial certain aspects of art can be; that human beings have mechanized them at a scale that more vital aspects of life have yet to experience.

Is it really gatekeeping? Does this opinion (that was valid and useful to me) carry any preventive force that the term suggests?

For what it's worth, the examples given on that page are either domestic instances or do not, as your parent comment describes, involve low profile individuals.

Who knows man, maybe it's their mother language or something.

The realist in me wants to label the sort of "digital romanticism" that the main text espouses as "materialist" in nature. With that being said, before I actually read the main text, I bookmarked the page because I appreciate it as a resource.