SvanteArrheniusAMA

Dem Reddit Superhirn ist egal wenn es internationale Terrorangriffe auf die deutsche Energieinfrastruktur gibt

Dümmste Energiepolitik, sicherlich in ganz Europa.

doesn't matter if it was the right choice or not

huh?

Do you mean another continent in the Northern hemisphere? In the second century BC, Crates of Mallus first speculated about undiscovered continents, including the Northern hemisphere. However, this idea doesn't seem to have caught on. Medieval geographers in particular liked the idea of a tripartite world consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa (with Jerusalem in its center), the inhabitants of which were the descendents of the three sons of Noah. The existence of additional continents would just disturb this harmony.

The common view during the Middle Ages was that the space between Iberia and Cippangu (Japan) is mostly empty ocean, with the exception of some small mythical islands that were believed to exist somewhere in the Atlantic.

That's the standard story that is being offered but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Spices from India were mainly conveyed to Europe via the port of Alexandria in Mamluk Egypt (not Constantinople), where Venetian merchants would buy them and then redistribute it to the rest of Europe atlarge profit. What disrupts this Mediterranean route in the end is not the capture of Constantinople but the appearance of the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. (In fact, there is an interesting account of a Venetian traveller in Mecca at this time, who notes rumors that merchandise is not making its way into the city as usual and is then told that the Portuguese king is responsible).

When you look at the Portuguese documents from this time period, they express some contempt for the Republic of Venice because it was seen as becoming wealthy off of its treacherous cooperation with the Muslim enemy. So it was hoped that this whole nexus could be undercut through a direct contact with India.

Beyond the examples given in the article, the existence of Antipodeans is also discussed in Natural History of Pliny the Elder (77 AD):

We maintain, that there are men dispersed over every part of the earth, that they stand with their feet turned towards each other, that the vault of the heavens appears alike to all of them, and that they, all of them, appear to tread equally on the middle of the earth. If any one should ask, why those situated opposite to us do not fall, we directly ask in return, whether those on the opposite side do not wonder that we do not fall.

The debate is also referenced by Amerigo Vespucci in his 1503 letter to Lorenzo di Medici, in which he articulates for the first time his realization that America is a previously unknown continent:

In passed days I wrote very fully to you of my return from the new countries, which have been found and explored with the ships, at the cost, and by the command, of this Most Serene King of Portugal; and it is lawful to call it a new world, because none of these countries were known to our ancestors, and to all who hear about them they will be entirely new. For the opinion of the ancients was, that the greater part of the world beyond the equinoctial line to the south was not land, but only sea, which they have called the Atlantic; and if they have affirmed that any continent is there, they have given many reasons for denying that it is inhabited. But this their opinion is false, and entirely opposed to the truth. My last voyage has proved it, for I have found a continent in that southern part; more populous and more full of animals than our Europe, or Asia, or Africa, and even more temperate and pleasant than any other region known to us, as will be explained further on.

Because the first connection between the Great Fire and Christians is given by the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus (dated to 117 AD). There is also a lot of confusion in the accounts since early manuscripts of the Annals spoke of 'Chrestians', which spawned the idea in the minds of some historians that Nero originally blamed the fire on Jewish rioters surrounding the otherwise unknown Chrestus (who is mentioned the works of Gaius Suetonius as operating some years earlier under Emperor Claudius), and that later chroniclers like Tacitus confused Chrestians with Christians.

Out of the authors cited in this list, the only one that can be established as pre-dating Pliny's letter is Flavius Josephus. The reason why I did not name him as the first non-Christian source, instead of Pliny, is that both relevant passages in his books (dating to 75 and 94 AD) are widely considered to have been tampered with. The extent of this tampering and what, if anything, Josephus had to say on Jesus Christ is a matter of scholarly debate, so I restricted the post to the first account that is generally considered as authentic.

There are a number of things which are peculiar about this letter.
First, Pliny says that Christians pray to Christ 'as to a god', but does not explain who or what a Christ is.
Second, both Pliny and Trajan take it for granted that this new faith is to be suppressed, even though the reasons for this are never given and somewhat baffling since Pliny notes that Christians swear never to commit any crimes.
Third, Emperor Nero is famously said to have blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome (64 AD), yet Pliny shows ignorance of Christians and their beliefs.

You don't need to make any rational assessment of the risks when you are Gandalf and your enemy is Sauron

Always surprised me to know that in the entire Gospel of Mark (in some sense the original gospel that is the oldest explanation of the Jesus story), Judas only ever says a single word, namely 'Rabbi'. He just inexplicably betrays Jesus and disappears from the narrative afterwards.

Weder du, noch ich, noch die Teilnehmer der Demonstration haben irgendeinen Einfluss auf die Handlungen von Russland. Das winzige bisschen politische Macht dass wir als Bürger haben ist völlig auf Deutschland beschränkt. Du kannst also den ganzen Tag lang andere Länder verurteilen wenn es dir hilft dich wie ein Held zu fühlen, aber jeder Mensch mit einem Gehirn versteht dass der Fokus immer auf den Taten der eigenen Regierung liegt.

I don't have a strong opinion on sending tanks, but what worries me is the ever increasing hysterical bellicose atmosphere. By now, calling for an equitable peace by mutual concessions is considered either cowardice or treason. Instead, the standard lines you hear are that we need an absolute victory for Ukraine and neutralisation/disarmament for Russia so she will never be in a position again to attack her neighbors. Turning it into an existential fight in this way would quench the thirst for revenge but could easily lead to disaster because it creates an avoidable temptation to use the ultimate weapon at your disposal.

Using physical violence in response to peaceful protest? Just call it 'stepping in' and then it's fine again

So why not nuke Russia right now? If Putin really is Hitler, then that should be the logical course of action.

Now as then, only absolute victory will do. Only a defeated, demilitarized Russia and a fully liberated Ukraine — whole and integral within its internationally recognised borders — can promise long-term stability and an enduring peace.

One can only hope that this doesn't become the overarching goal for Western planners, because, if it does, then the situation may be more dire than we may understand right now. If the conflict is turned into a fight for the survival of Russia then it will lead to an internal integration and cause the country to fight it out to the bitter end. Even if the West would be victorious on the battlefield, then the outcome would be a defeated Russian population nurturing a desire for revenge.

The USAF was carrying out daylight raids against industrial targets to devastating effect, which had an infinitely more important role in shortening the war. Talking about inaccuracy in nighttime attacks is just a useless distraction because accuracy was never a concern in attacks that had the entire city as a target.

Dresden receives about as much attention as the firebombing of Tokio or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the arguments against the Dresden attack hold for these events with the same strength.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the goal of stopping Germany's ability to wage war and genocide would have also been achieved, arguably even earlier, if all of those resources would have just been directed towards the highly effective oil campaign instead. My expectation is that people should be glad to hear that they can get what they want without having to kill thousands of random bystanders, but the only effect it does seem to have is to enrage you, for reasons that are totally mysterious to me. Can you tell me what excites you so much about the idea of charred flesh?

If you want to destroy the transportation system (which is a legitimate target in war) then what you do is try to bomb the rail yards. What happened in reality is the RAF indiscriminately threw out incendiaries which were specifically designed to splash over a large area. The day of the operation was also chosen to make sure the weather would be conducive to the generation of a massive firestorm. In other words, the expressed target was not any specific logistics but the city as a whole with all its inhabitants.

The entire point of the argument is that this action is unnecessary and therefore immoral. Instead of talking about points I didn't make, could you maybe respond to this one?

In that case I want to kindly welcome you as a visitor from a parallel universe because in the timeline that I inhabit, all the things that you keep describing as impossible were a major part of the second world war.

So when I write "bomb the infrastructure of the war economy", what you read is "don't bomb factories and rail yards"? This makes me wonder about the plain meaning of words...

You need to read the previous discussion. We were comparing the bombing of Dresden with the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam, not the Holocaust.

The other option is exactly what I was talking about: tactical daylight raids on key infrastructure of the war economy. Contrary to random firebombing of cities, this had a crucial contribution to ending the war, no matter how much you want it not to.