My very initial thoughts on the huge liquid fuel Missile displayed by North Korea. My estimates are likely within a plus/minus 10%, and loaded with some basic engineering assumptions. Much remains to be learned.... 1/n
More from World
Shopkeepers like in this video below say
"Pompeo, we Xinjiang people hate you."
Or everyday working people like Zaynura Namatqari, who speak out against vicious & disgusting US lies and accusations about
BBC's false reporting is hurting real Uygurs.
— Jingjing Li \u674e\u83c1\u83c1 (@Jingjing_Li) February 13, 2021
At a press conference, I saw this Uygur lady, who is a former trainee of a vocational education & training center in #Xinjiang, got emotional & furious at @BBC 's false reporting accusing systematic rape in #China. #Uyghur pic.twitter.com/vdu7KlAWMr
.@qiaocollective have a brilliant thread of everyday proletarian Uyghurs speaking out against the harassment they face from the US and their paid
The family of a retired cadre scorn Pompeo and the American imperialist interests he stands for. They celebrate China's sanctioning of Pompeo as the proper move against U.S. imperialist designs on Xinjiang. pic.twitter.com/vOfExwMfD8
— Qiao Collective (@qiaocollective) February 12, 2021
'Uyghur proletariat' looks like this:
Not like this: (photo from a pro Islamist separatist protest in Turkey in 2017)
Nuclear energy:
— PragerU (@prageru) February 17, 2021
Safe? \u2705
Clean? \u2705
Efficient? \u2705
Scalable? \u2705
Why is it not receiving more political support?
Polls consistently show conservative support for nuclear energy. It also has high support among elites. The myth that it is unpopular in general isn’t true—although it is unpopular in almost every specific case where they need to site it
Article is old but yeah
This study finds that risk & benefit predict individual opinion the most, followed by the share of nuclear energy already extant, followed by ideology (conservatives support more)
This one finds that journalists attitude affect public perceptions, but that energy consultants, nuclear engineers, bureaucrats, and the military show the highest support for nuclear energy
You May Also Like
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x