Life of Brian - The People's Front of Judea

"We are the People's Front of Judea!" "What about the popular front?" "He's over there." ▶ this video

Aha, I'd originally confused your D with the DISC D irectness. Paul's subaltern comment reminded me strongly of "Life of Brian": ▶ this video Re: Rao, I found that I had to deliberately read link in small chunks with large breaks, because otherwise it all blurs together in terms of being a bunch of h saps being awful to each other. More specifically to his introduction, one can see big differences in the "tournament" between say 1250 and 1500: over that period they go from being a sort of open wargame with a racing-for-pinkslips feel played over the several km of hill and dale between villages, to a sport played in an enclosed pitch in front of an audience, limited to vetted entrants with the appropriate gear.

Left-leaning people famously tend to disagree with each other (eg: as lampooned in ▶ this video ). If 'hippies' here refers to the original hippies back in the 1960s, they ran the whole range from far pipebombs-in-the-name-of-communism left, to centrist.

> "structureless" groups which spontaneously organized around an opportunity and were initially effective [...] but succumbed to the dynamics Even spontaneous groups must filter for Competence. This is fundamental. From domain-specific skills to planning and managing the sustainability of the project, a spontaneous group must be more than superficial associates and barnacles. For a humorously timeless example, see the revolutionary movement in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. link ▶ this video

Yes, that's the obvious argument against this being a false flag operation: why would they bother, they already won. Is Bill Gates that petty? So that means that it's more likely that this is just backbiting on an old, sick man. E.g.: The People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front ▶ this video Let the old nerd die in peace with his friends. (I'm done with this thread and this subject. Have a better one.)

That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the headline. Some of their shows are often seen as absurd and then they become mainstream reality years later. Sort of like some of the old Monty Python works. For example there is the skit where they talk about fractious Judean (insert Israeli) politics and men giving birth: ▶ this video link

While currently Catalan separatism is a non-starter there are issues in the areas that they claim as theirs as the Valencians consider themselves separate to the Catalans. It is the nesting doll situation of splinter separatist groups. link link link Ultimately reminds me of the Monty Python skit from the Life of Brian - The People's Front of Judea: ▶ this video

>9.9% the same but it’s the 0.01% difference that gets all the attention Ah the good old: link Also: ▶ this video

I found that all I need is git for Windows and its bash and Unix commands, plus ConEmu for terminals. I'm completely at ease with developing on Windows now, and I've "done Linux" since 1994, worked long for one of the major Linux vendors and even contributed a bit to the Linux kernel (networking and firewall), but if I had to do system administration I might have a stronger opinion (simply because I'M so sued to Unix ways in general). It is like this Monty Python scene ▶ this video when people start arguing about their operating system. For the last couple of years I looked at how nature (biology) "computes", not just neurons, the entire bio-chemistry with its machinery. Now that is something different - while everything people put on their computers works on pretty much the exact same principles unless you zoom all the way in to nanometer scale (figuratively speaking).

> And yet we need to do it Who are "we"? And what is "it"? Do you just take on yourself the mantle of decider for the whole world who is worthy and who is not? Or how is it determined? Who is worthy to wear that mantle? I don't think any human is. > I'd claim that this is a problem Maybe human nature is a "problem". But what you're going to do, replace humanity with better species? Do you have one in mind? Beyond that, I don't see how declaring it "a problem" helps anything, unless there's a fix to this problem. History teaches me that all attempts to create a "new, better human race" didn't just end badly - they ended so awfully terrible that when people point at it, other people get offended that you dare to compare their ideas to that . So, we have to deal with what we have now - and had for millienia. Given what we did with it - well, not ideal, but certainly there have been some improvement. > it would be great to incentivize the kind that leads to a more stable, more just society How do you know what leads to more just society? Maybe rants would lead to more just society faster? As for stability, stability is only good when we're at the optimum. Are we? > I feel we need to try and walk that fine line, if we want to have a society that's better than just random. Which fine line? Everybody has their own fine line, that's the point. You could maybe find a bunch of people whose fine line is similar to your own, if you don't look too far into the future (and if you do, what