AliSaket

joined 9 months ago
[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 6 points 6 days ago

Mein Punkt ist ja, dass es nicht unbedingt logisch (=präfrontaler Cortex lastig) ist, sondern im Gegenteil eher widersprüchlich. Rein spekulativ, aber das mit dem Image würde ich nicht auf Merz vs. Scholz/Habeck einschränken, sondern auf das wahrgenommene Parteiimage an sich. Den Gutmenschen und Weltverbesserern wird eine harte Gangart halt weniger abgenommen. Im Gegenteil steht Weltoffenheit halt diametral zum Drang nach Abschottung.

Der Schuss kann ferner noch weiter nach hinten losgehen, da sich die beiden Parteien von ihrer Basis entfernen und diese jeweils weniger angespornt wird, aktiv zu werden oder gar zu wählen. So etwas ähnliches sah man international am prominentesten vor ein paar Monaten in den USA. Sie ist jedoch nicht das einzige Beispiel. Die Union hingegen darf weniger Skrupel haben, da die Basis nur schon aufgrund ihrer Geschichte breit, insgesamt weiter rechts ist und durch die AfD beeinflusst wird. Die dadurch erlaubte Klarheit in der Kommunikation kann ein Vorteil sein.

Hinzu kommt die wenig ruhmreiche Regierung der Ampel, welche v.a. für Stillstand und Streit steht, als für tatsächlichen Willen und Fortschritt. Und was erreicht wurde, kam in der Öffentlichkeit auch in schlechtes Licht. Als Beispiel fällt mir spontan die unsägliche Posse um das Gebäudeenergiegesetz ein, welches in den Medien, gerade auch in den sozialen Medien, durch mit Falschinformationen durchzogenen Angriffen traktiert und nie effektvoll verteidigt und präsentiert wurde.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

Neben den im Artikel genannten Gründen, scheint mir das wichtige Thema "Emotionen" etwas unterschlagen worden zu sein. Für das Beispiel Angst und Sicherheit: Die AfD hat über die letzten Jahre eine Drohkulisse aufgebaut. Natürlich unter der Komplizenschaft der Medien, welche verzerrt über Verbrechen berichten . So werden nichtdeutsche Tatverdächtige im Fernsehen 19 Mal, in Zeitungsberichten 32 Mal so häufig erwähnt, "wie es ihrem statistischen Anteil entspricht". Die Inkompetenz der anderen Parteien in Bezug auf moderne/soziale Medien gepaart mit schwer belegbaren Mis- und Desinformationkampagnen aus dem In- und Ausland runden das Ganze ab. Weiter befeuert wird die Angst durch den Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine und die Unberechenbarkeit der USA in einer zunehmend multipolaren Welt.

Die Union hat sich bezüglich dieses Themas extrem nach rechts gerückt, ohne sich den Stank des Rechtsextremismus anzueignen und steht in den Augen und eben auch Herzen vieler, für Sicherheit. Zumindest gefühlt. Zusätzlich konnte sich diese Verhindererpartei, gerade dank dieses Themas, als eine Veränderungspartei positionieren. Das sorgt auch unter Menschen, die wirtschaftlich durch die CDU Politik leiden werden für Zulauf, gerade weil der Status Quo unbefriedigend ist.

Eine Alternative, welche aus ihren eigenen Prinzipien und wertebasierten Weltanschauung heraus eine andere Erzählung und Erklärung der Ereignisse anbieten würde, steht nicht wirklich zur Wahl. Die am ehesten dafür in Frage kommende Linke befindet sich in einer organisatorischen Krise, die SPD folgte der CDU nach rechts und Bündnis 90 weiss gefühlt noch nicht so recht wohin. So gibt es nur vereinzelte Personen, welche jedoch kaum wahrgenommen werden.

Edit: Weltpolitik als Angstgrund eingefügt.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

How would anything have been able to form, i.e. make more order, without decreasing entropy?

Of course there are multiple errors in that thought.

  1. Entropy does not mean an actual grade of (dis-)order or organization. It's one model to grasp certain processes through that concept. Outside of these the model doesn't hold.
  2. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy cannot decrease in a CLOSED system (i.e. mass, energy, information flow at the boundary = 0). It doesn't mean that within that system there can't be local imbalances. For example: For a plant to be able to "order" - to use this term - its molecules to cells, Hydrogen atoms had to have been fused to Helium in our fusion reactor 150 million km away that we call sun which increases local entropy.

Of course there's more wrong with it, but those would be the blatant ones for me.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is exactly what I am talking about. Do you care about democracy or not? Do you care about human rights or not? Do you care about Palestinians (Americans), African Americans, Latino Americans or all the others that are being blamed or not?

If you do, you don't just play the blame game, sit back and 'watch the world burn' as you've put it. As long as you're divided, you're powerless.

Instead of blaming, you unite. Instead of antagonizing, you organize. Instead of resignation, you fight.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 31 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Democracy is being dismantled as we speak. Agency by agency, loyalist by loyalist, executive order by executive order. And instead of building community, helping each other and organizing with those around you, I see people, who supposedly care about democracy, about human rights, about those they accuse; and what are they doing? They are blaming people who are powerless and desparing. Thereby further dividing the populace and making the takeover easier for the fascists in power. Be careful: You are telling on yourselves and your values. And we can see you.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I made a similar discovery after installing a Shelly Switch with Power Metering. The monitors and their brightness make a huge difference as well when in or near idle (for photography, so not a surprise). I've also implemented an "anti-standby" function, so the switch opens whenever the current falls under a specific threshold.

For the WoL, since I have a switch, I configured my BIOS so it would turn on after power loss. Now I can start to boot up from afar :)

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Alright. Thanks for the save & copy. I think we can now remove this comment thread.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 12 points 3 weeks ago

There are many parallels . The most alarming in my eyes is what is reminding me of what happened before and after the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. What it effectually did was to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, circumventing the legislature to enact laws even if they are explicitly unconstitutional. The far right’s Unitary Executive Theory has basically the same stated goal. And the judiciary has already basically embodied this theory with the SC decision around presidential immunity. I fear it is only a matter of time, until the Executive Orders override laws and can’t be challenged until it’s too late. Which is why an actually resisting opposition and organizing on the ground is so important.

To your point: Before the vote the Nazis intimidated anyone opposing the law and arrested basically the whole of the Communist Party and some of the Social Democartic Party (SPD) while striking deals with the center and religious right, who wanted some assurances for their own if they vote for it. This is the Gleichschaltung you’re talking about. And the Trump administration has been known for nothing but intimidation (the complete media landscape has heeled except for a few small actually independent outlets) and so-called deals, so absolutely.

Also the ‘flooding of the zone’ as Steve Bannon announced it, as well as the use of catastrophies (fires, plane crashes) to assign further blame to the opponents and legitimize the own actions are straight out of Autocracy 101.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Well thank you kindly. Would it be better for me to repost it directly in the new post?

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 6 points 3 weeks ago

There are many parallels . The most alarming in my eyes is what is reminding me of what happened before and after the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. What it effectually did was to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, circumventing the legislature to enact laws even if they are explicitly unconstitutional. The far right's Unitary Executive Theory has basically the same stated goal. And the judiciary has already basically embodied this theory with the SC decision around presidential immunity. I fear it is only a matter of time, until the Executive Orders override laws and can't be challenged until it's too late. Which is why an actually resisting opposition and organizing on the ground is so important.

To your point: Before the vote the Nazis intimidated anyone opposing the law and arrested basically the whole of the Communist Party and some of the Social Democartic Party (SPD) while striking deals with the center and religious right, who wanted some assurances for their own if they vote for it. This is the Gleichschaltung you're talking about. And the Trump administration has been known for nothing but intimidation (the complete media landscape has heeled except for a few small actually independent outlets) and so-called deals, so absolutely.

Also the 'flooding of the zone' as Steve Bannon announced it, as well as the use of catastrophies (fires, plane crashes) to assign further blame to the opponents and legitimize the own actions are straight out of Autocracy 101.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

AOC is not calling for incrementalism.

That's what I'm saying. Because neither did the user you replied to. They didn't call for politicians to take small steps over time, but for everyone to take action so it adds up. Big difference.

[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The difference being that the incrementalism was outsourced to elected officials. What I understand that sentence to mean to say is that it needs every one of you who is able to do anything of any magnitude. It adds up. And like kattfisk says, you get active and organized. You have more power than you think and democracy is more than just drawing a few crosses in a box every few years.

I mean, who is going to do it if not you? What have the heroes from the Democratic party been up to since the peaceful transition of power? Some of the Dem senators voted for many of Trumps catastrophic picks. In a time where the White House is flooding the zone (as Steve Bannon put it some time ago), Shumer is giving speeches on the senate floor, that no one is listening to and Dem leadership is scheduling emergency meetings for after the reason for the meeting goes into effect. Finally AOC shows some kind of leadership and calls upon all of you to mobilize and resist fascism and you react with "it's a stalling tactic"? Please realize that you want the same thing. But if you want a mass movement, you will need to be organized on a smaller scale first or else it will fizzle out quickly.

 

Two 10-second penalties were given to Max after the two incidents in T4 and T8 of the 10th lap of the Mexico GP last Sunday. Additionally, 2 penalty points are added to Max' license which brings the total to 6 during 12 months. If I were to ask you, which of the two incidents would merit the 2 penalty points more, would you have guessed, it's the T4 incident?

In their official document of the T4 incident, the stewards are of the impression, that Lando was in front of Max 'at the entry, apex and towards the exit of the turn when he started being forced off the track' and that Lando would have been able to stay on track to finish the maneuver. (Sidenote: Horner's argument, that one would take the same lines and braking points during a fastest lap and when going wheel to wheel is laughable on its face.) The standard penalty for forcing another driver of the track has been applied. I can't see any problems with the reasoning in this case.

Now for the T8 incident:
'Following the incident in Turn 4, Verstappen attempted to pass Norris on the inside at Turn 8. Verstappen was ahead at the apex of Turn 8 and would have been entitled to racing room.' It is only because he didn't stay on track while doing all this shenanigans and then stayed in front, that he got a 10 second penalty without penalty points, which is the standard penalty for 'Leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage'. It is not for forcing off another driver, or for provoking a crash (which Lando barely avoided).

And there lies the problem with the current driving standards guidelines. The only one available somewhere is a version from the Imola GP of 2022 (so they might be slightly out-of-date). On the second point of overtaking on the outside, they read:

'In order for a car being overtaken to be required to give sufficient room to an overtaking car, the overtaking car needs to have a significant portion of the car alongside the car being overtaken and the overtaking manoeuvre must be done in a safe and controlled manner, while enabling the car to clearly remain within the limits of the track.

When considering what is a ‘significant portion’, for an overtaking on the outside of a corner, among the various factors that will be looked at by the stewards when exercising their discretion, the stewards will consider if the overtaking car is ahead of the other car from the apex of the corner.

The car being overtaken must be capable of making the corner while remaining within the limits of the track.'

There's 3 problems with this.

  1. It just makes it a race to the apex, which is in itself ill-defined. A quick part-fix: They could clarify it ahead of each weekend, e.g. given the ideal line for a quali lap. If you overtake on the outside, you'll have to get ahead by that apex and still remain on the track. If overtaking on the inside, make sure the 'front tires are alongside the other car by no later than the apex' and you are entitled to 'sufficient room'. If not, you can be forced off track, or the door closed on you respectively. Doesn't read too bad if not for the imprecise definition, the bias towards the inside car (front tires alongside the other car vs. ahead of the other car) and that it only works in one direction (if I overtake someone on the inside and got my tires alongside the sidepod of the one overtaken, I have to do it in a safe manner, but can crowd them off the track depending on the interpretation).

  2. the last part of the overtaken car having to be capable of making the corner has just been ignored until that T4 incident. For a recent example: The US GP. The 'gaining an advantage' is not well defined at all ('This may include giving back the timing advantage up to drop back a position behind the relevant driver') and should imho be explicitely extended by being able to hold a position by going off-track.

  3. Causing a collision is regulated in the International Sporting Code, App. L, Article 2.d). There is nothing about a provocation of a collision which was only avoided by the actions of another driver. So there is a way too large grey area which incentivizes the wronged party to actually make small contact in order for the other driver to get a penalty. And since we aren't playing bumper cars, this should be more clearly regulated, especially since the not leaving 'sufficient room' part has also been criminally negleted over the years.

Now add to all of this the inconsistencies between different stewards, or of the same stewards during the same GP (e.g. TSU penalty vs. VER non-penalty during the US GP a week ago) and we have a completely chaotic situation, where actual racing comes short.

I would love to do an actual deep dive and clip out all relevant incidents back to 2020/21 when Lewis and Fernando brought fourth the same arguments, that seem to have become more clear for a broader audience now that Max is arguably more brazen with his interpretation of the rules and guidelines and others are starting to imitate it. Alas I lack the time. The Mexico and US GPs in 2024 should be more than enough to make the points clear. And it is a positive sign, that the driving standard guidelines will be changed come 2025 and that the drivers had a productive meeting last Friday in Mexico.

view more: next ›