(1) Omaha and Council Bluffs are not twin cities. The former doesn't think about the latter, and the latter sees the former as workplace, shopping mall and zoo.

(2) The residents of Omaha didn't coin the term 'Counciltucky.' That privilege belongs to the residents of Council Bluffs themselves.

Reference: a former resident of Council Bluffs who is a current resident of Omaha.

There are, but the executive for decades (centuries?) has ignored law inconvenient to its goals, and the legislative has generally shrugged it off, hoping their guy will do the same down the road.

One such restraint? Declaring war. Yet how often has this power been abused by the executive since World War 2? Korea anyone? Vietnam? Central America? The Middle East?

There's been a lot of hand-wringing in this thread about what Trump has done and is doing. Truth is, he's just the latest player in the game we've all participated in, and he's good at it.

To stop him, we'd have to change the rules of the game, as Congress did in 2017 with the Russia sanctions bill.[1] I just don't see that happening 'cause... we're all hoping our guy will do the same (as Trump) down the road.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_America%27s_Adversa...>

Democracy as has been used over the past decade or so (as in, such-and-such is a threat to our democracy) does a fine enough job disparaging itself.

> ... gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages.

And yet you also write—

> Democracy is superior... because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights...

—which is based on scripture straight out of the founders.

Thing is, many of the founders (and the most important among them) were familiar not just with (then) present-day monarchy, taxation and war, but with ancient Athens, ancient Rome and enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. They had examples of both good and bad democracies to draw lessons from, and they realized early-on that without some binding agreement to rein in the worst tendencies of democracy, the nation wouldn't regularly self-evaluate, correct itself and prevent an implosion by majority rule.

We needn't look back as far as Jim Crow or American Prohibition or McCarthyism to see where 'majorities' can lead us. If you want, think California and its democratic super-majorities over the past decade. Or, if progressive, think of Florida and its anti-lgbt laws. You sure you want majority rule?

> The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights.

Which, again, is scripture out of the founders.

But let's say this solution didn't come out of the founders: who decides what human rights are? The majority? University professors? The self-selected intelligentsia? The current governors of California and Florida?

And who decides how these rights are enforced?

I speak both from public and personal history: when American leadership signed its various trade treaties with China back in the 90s and earlier, opening itself up to the swift transfer of manufacturing to its one-time enemy, was American leadership not signaling its strong desire to diminish American power for the sake of peace?

And on a personal level: my hippie parents had often railed against American imperialism and voted for candidates they thought could stop it. What did they (and other similarly-minded folks) think would happen once America withdrew from the world stage? Do people who think the same way today believe America will grow stronger by pulling back?

Having been around since the late 60s, I can only say this attitude has been in the making for a long time. I can't point to college sit-ins or Nixon going to China or Carter turning over the Panama Canal or the US-China Relations Act (2000) or anything specific stating 'this is the definitive moment', but this desire for a weaker, more isolationist America is neither surprising nor accidental for those of us who've been watching it grow. It's ultimately what my parents and their contemporaries wanted. It's... dream fulfillment.

When I read the article, I read the article, immediately jumping past the headline and lead graphic, not bothering to check who wrote the article before coming back here to read the comments. I only learned of Ms. Morrison's authorship from your top comment.

Outside the story's impression of poverty versus wealth in the 1940's, and without knowing who the author is, what gave you the idea this article had anything to do with race? Or that the person's notions you commented on 'almost seem racist'?

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou

You've heard the phrase "read the room"? The OP added this article to HN, a site known for its detail-oriented minds (programmers, engineers, technicians, etc.) or, if you prefer another insult, "rules lawyers".

And then someone complains that these same detail-oriented folks find that some of the details in the article are lacking? And tries shaming them into giving up their detail-oriented ways?

Odd flex.

Look at the headline—

"'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables for four straight months"

and the article's very first sentence—

"Renewables alone have powered the Uruguayan economy for nearly four straight months."

versus the quote you use (the second sentence of the article)—

"In the three months to end-September 2023, the South American nation generated all of its electricity from renewable sources"

Both the headline and the first sentence are misleading. The writer did this on purpose. My guess is it's because he (Nick Hedley) likely knows that many (most?) people reading the headline won't go past that first sentence and will come away with a false sense of what really happened. Couldn't he have instead spread the good news with "Energy independent Uruguay runs its electrical grid on 100% renewables for four straight months"?

How is asking for upfront honesty being an acerbic pedant?

> of having an extremely mainstream Californian outlook

One can have the outlook without the residency.

And what is that outlook? Certainly not what CS imagines it to be, e.g. "uncritical technological boosterism and the desire to get rich quick." If one wants the real California ideology, one only need look at Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party supermajorities of a past decade-plus. Or at the policies enacted by San Fran, LA, and other major California cities in recent years.

Scottish national policy as of late hasn't been too far off this mark. ;-)

I'm not so sure about that. Because, if what Bodnick says is true, the judges never go for the meat but always vote for the sizzle. As she herself wrote, 'For example, many leftist judges will not accept a response to a Marxism kritik that argues that capitalism is good.' Sounds more like the K advocate (with the aid of the judge) is more interested in diffusing aromas than putting ribeye on the table.

>> Previous generations succumbed badly to gender essentialism... and as ever, left a mess for the next generations.

Perhaps previous generations--thousands of them? millions?--realized there's more to gender than blank-slate social constructionism. And the mess is self-created by a younger generation wanting to rebel for want of anything else to rebel against?

See how easy it is to apply ageism in the other direction? /s

> Isn't iterative improvement what all science is about?

Yes and no. There's more to science, but iterative improvement is a large part of it.

My issue with psychology (and other soft sciences, e.g. sociology, economics) isn't so much its striving to find answers, but its adopting a one-sided worldview before that striving, thereby coloring their findings with that one side.

Look at what you wrote--'I know it [psychology] is typically viewed as a 'liberal' field'. That's because it IS a liberal (well, a politically Progressive) field--its instructors, its researchers, its practitioners largely are self-admittedly liberal (and further Left on the political spectrum.) And when they hire, they hire like-minds.[1] (Which is a thing humans do--no one wants to work with people they... dislike... for some reason.)

And so, because they've no opposing worldview in their ranks to say 'no', well... can their findings be trusted? [2]

[1] A commentary on the perceived political homogeneity at the University--https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/the_value_...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26785836/

> It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that).

As a Criterion Channel subscriber, I take them at their word when they say in their mission statement [1]--

> No matter the medium... Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen...

Which leads me to ask, did the maker of The French Connection want those slurs removed from his film? (William Friedkin is, after all, still with us.) He certainly seems to have left those slurs in when he and his distributor released the film to audiences in the 70's.

Which makes me curious--just how tough were those previous audiences to be able to withstand the onslaught of slurs that today wilts the average modern viewer? Those moderns could probably use a bit of that stern stuff when looking at the past...

[1] https://www.criterion.com/about

Considering most humans in most places at most times lived in deprived circumstances, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet on the nature of Schmitz et al.'s findings. Remember their findings 'could be linked,' not 'are linked.'

Without discussing politics or political topics (e.g. the benefits of diversity in a group of people,) can you give examples of this 'much more relevant' wisdom of today? For example, Aristotle taught metaphysics and aspirational ethics, amongst other topics--can you give examples of today's 'much more relevant' wisdoms that are more relevant than what he had to say? Examples that leave no question as to how much more relevant or, perhaps, more wise those (new vs old) wisdoms are? Thanks.