Maybe not general data cap exemption but for as long as I remember a lot of carriers in Europe whitelist certain apps that people think of as "essential" that work even when you've reached your data limit - such as WhatsApp and Messenger. Perhaps there are certain applications specific to South Korea that people think as essential/universal and expect them to work without a data plan (even maybe related to the digital ID thing they have there).
Here in Spain a few years ago some ISP's just put a data cap about 2.7KBPS (2-3G?) and call it a day. Enough for text sites, messages and the like. But if you were smart (mosh, NNTP)... you could connect to some public Unix servers and fire up Lynx/Links at crazy speeds under a Tmux window and be able to read sites/blog posts and the like. And with edbrowse, even comment on some simple JS sites.
With some cachés set for my audio player I could even listen to some odd Avant Gardé radio streams -think Frank Zappa like- at http://dir.xiph.org with 16 KBPS quality in OPUS format. Not totally robotic, it sounded better than old MP3's at 32KBPS.
According to Wikipedia, the DEA gave him immunity on additional charges in return for pleading guilty and running a sting against his associates, but before the DEA knew about the murders.
Seems weird that the DEA can even give him immunity unknown crimes, especially ones that might not be directly related to the case and even weirder that they would offer that. Makes you wonder what kind of leverage/information you have to have to get that kind of plea deal.
Yeah I'm always amazed at what they can get people to pay for individual vials. I buy kits of 24mg reta for ~280. And that's not the cheapest, for certain.
> My patient is refusing a drug studied in 170,000 people because of side effects that a 124,000-person analysis just confirmed do not exist — while injecting a compound studied in 14 humans, from unregulated sources, based on the recommendation of someone who profits from selling it. She’s probably not the only one. And those using it believe they are “doing their own research.”
Ok, and? At worst you waste a couple hundred dollars and deem the alternative therapy not worth it and go back to your doctor but I know dozens of people at my gym that used BPC 157 and TB 500 that fixed their chronic tendon/joint issues within weeks of starting the therapy that physios couldn't fix for years.
But I'm not saying everyone should be taking these peptides, I'm not coercing anyone, my original point was that people like the author of the article should mind their own business what other people choose to do with their own bodies.
It's very common when people start doing a new exercise regimen. Muscles can become significantly stronger on a timescale of months, while an equivalent increase in the strength of tendons happens on a timescale of a few years. Once somebody has a few years of training under their belt, muscle mass gains are way slower and the capacity of the ligaments will have caught up and these issues go away. However, with bodybuilders and strength athletes these problems can easily come back once anabolic steroids are involved and give big muscular gains without the same level of adaptations in connective tissues.
I don't doubt it. You make casual friends sometimes at certain gyms, especially if any sort of sports are involved like tennis or even group classes.
I am a super introvert and know at least half a dozen folks with such issues, more if you include my close friend group.
Any place that has a lot of physically active people stressing their limits a bit is going to have a lot of injured folks over a decent period of time. And of course it gets talked about quite a lot, since it limits performance and ability.
My trainer knows I have a chronic shoulder issue, and an adductor issue at the moment I'm working through that we need to avoid stressing too much. The few other folks who tend to work out around my schedule know of this, and I know of theirs.
My partner's grandfather died of cancer because when he was having pains they believed their homeopathic medicine would work. When he finally when in to see a real doctor it was too late. If he had gone in earlier, he would been able to have a chance. This is not a rare occurrence for these types.
Why would you stop going to a real doctor though? It's not one or the other.
I'm very on the fence over BPC-157/TB500, I really want to see some actual clinical trials ran on it. I have a feeling the effects are overstated, but I also have had a number of "insider" conversations where I know these and other compounds are very much being utilized in pro athlete injury recovery programs. Those athletes certainly are getting state of the art medical care via traditional sources, plus elite level physio therapy - so it's hard to say if the illicit injury recovery drugs are doing much or not.
I don’t think either of those are patentable so I doubt you’ll see studies or trials any time soon. A lot of strength athletes at all levels, not just elite, are absolutely convinced of their efficacy and their usage sometimes seems as common as ibuprofen.
I used those two in combination to fix pain after 3x surgeries to repair a torn pec + infection. They work and helped me heal from being at a 3/10 constant pain down to baseline.
Not something I would do at any point for fun. But anecdotally, it's materially better than other alternatives offered/available.
According to our new AI overlords, a short synopsis of potential risks of BPC 157 based on mechanistic and animal work to date (don't know human risks because there haven't been sufficient clinical studies):
* Possible pathologic angiogenesis (abnormal blood‑vessel growth), which theoretically could support tumor growth or inflammatory and autoimmune processes.
* Modulation of nitric‑oxide pathways that, at high levels, might contribute to anemia, altered drug metabolism (CYP enzyme activity), and possibly neurodegenerative processes in theory.
* Concerns that its pro‑healing, pro‑growth signalling (e.g., FAK–paxillin) could encourage cancer spread if malignant cells are already present; this remains theoretical, with no proof in humans.
* Possible liver and kidney toxicity suggested in some commentary and extrapolated from preclinical work, but not well characterized in people.
* Immune reactions or allergic responses, including fevers, rash, hives, muscle aches, or systemic inflammatory responses
These do not appear to be results that would appear overnight. It would be "nice" if the folks injecting random shit into their bodies also disclaimed any subsequent medical intervention as a result of said shit, but that I suspect that's unlikely.
We have no specific reason to believe there are concerns with GLP-1s for cancer or anything else, beyond the mildest signal in rodent studies around thyroids.
We do not have robust clinical data for things like BPC-157 but we do have strong preclinical data and an understanding of the mechanisms in play.
I use BPC-157/TB-500/Ghk-CU/KPV - so I'm certainly OK taking the risks. But those mechanisms mentioned before? The same things we're counting on for healing and inflammation reduction are the same things that we know can cause an increase in tumor growth rate and chance of metastasizing. VEGF/VEGFR2 expression are even suppression targets for some cancer therapies.
Are there powerful and useful medications out there, available today, that we both don't have good scientific data on and are free enough of serious side effects? For sure! Is everything out there that, though? No. Some things that work will have too serious of a side effect profile to be feasible. Some things won't work at all, despite however much anecdata is out there.
As for the general idea... I agree there's no law that says a medicine with a strong positive effect must also have strong side effects. And we have plenty that don't - statins, particularly the latest generation, like pitavastatin, are effectively side effect free for the hugely overwhelming majority of people and have great lipid lowering effects. Even older ones showed extremely minimal incidents of things like muscle pain - a vanishingly small number of people relative to the total amount on the medications report muscle pain, and when investigated, quite a lot of even that ends up being unrelated to the statins. Yet the narrative persists that make it sound like anyone on statins is going to have their muscles ache 24/7
I'm glad we have GLP-1, and I don't think there are really major side effects. But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity.
It seems to be like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: it's a miracle in clinical trials but in the real world the patients just lower the doses or discontinue treatment after 1-2 years and go back to their old habits.
I hope it sounds less wild if you think obesity as disease of addiction. Reducing GLP1 dose can increase the enjoyment in eating, so it makes sense why treating obesity with GLP1 is like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: Effective in theory but hard to adhere outside trials.
Type 1 diabetes (or majority of diseases) doesn't involve addiction.
It is not ineffective outside of clinical trials. All the evidence says that people gain some weight back after they discontinue treatment - which is not a lack of efficacy. But they also usually gain back less then they lost.
I can't reply elsewhere so I will reply to this again.
> In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to. Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
Anecdotes like this are interesting but in medicine they are not sufficient to make factual statements about drugs. In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment [1].
The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached.
> In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment
What does "steeper" mean? The studies I've seen show a net weight loss, even after regain, for the median patient.
> The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached
Maybe. Right now, however, the evidence shows solid effects outside clinical settings. Your original statement was wrong–your sources own refute the claim.
If you're arguing the effects in the real world haven't consistently been as ridiculous as they were in clinical trials, sure, you get a brownie point. But broadly speaking, these drugs are terrifically effective, both when taken for life and when taken intermittently.
If only there were a federal administration whose responsibility it was to collect data about food and drugs so we could rely on something more than anecdotes from random strangers on the Internet.
I emphasize it's like the drug disulfiram: Very effective as long as patients take the full dose, but the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment.
> the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment
Do you have a source for this "lack of real-world efficacy"?
> This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years
"With a with a median on-treatment weight change of −2.9%" [1]. Of those who discontinued and experienced "weight gain since discontinuation," they were "associated with an increased likelihood of GLP-1 RA reinitiation."
I'm genuinely struggling to see how this source shows real world inefficacy. In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to.
Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
You mean the ones that are the result of experience through controlled clinical trials with statistical analyses and error bars, yep, sure. I guess I have a bit more faith in those leaflets and the testing regimes that generates them than the word of some gymbro or influencer who injected themselves and didn't immediately fall over dead.
Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women are well capable of.
Because it would take a change to the constitution to do that while reinstating the old draft laws only takes a regular majority in parliament. The draft is a severe limitation of personal freedom, so you can't just do that by law. The draft for men is already enabled in the constitution, the draft for woman isn't.
At this moment, changing the constitution is not possible, there is no majority for this. So that pretty much took the option to change the broader parameters out of the discussion entirely.
If there were one. The closest thing is the Treaty of Lisbon, which in turn was an update on the Treaties of Maastricht and Rome.
However, the matter has been heard in the European Court of Justice in 2002, and the short version is "Community law does not preclude compulsory military service being reserved to men."
It probably could be challenged under the German constitution, but nobody knows if that would be successful. The draft for men is set up in the constitution, but there is also an explicit equality for men and women in there. In the past any challenge would almost certainly have been denied, but it's a different time now.
In practice, this draft is not a real draft yet. Nobody is actually drafted, so there are almost no practical consequences. If there was an actual draft, I'd expect to see a challenge to this.
Some countries in the EU, like mine, have funny discrimination laws that say a positive discrimination is not considered a discrimination under the law, so it cannot be challenged. It is used as the basis for all women-favoring regulations.
This: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/224130 article 2, paragraph 9. I tells there is no discrimination if you do it under the pretext of improving equality or if it is a positive measure for "disadvantaged groups". A disadvantaged group is any group that is in a position of inequality with the majority, basically anyone rating less than 50%. That was used to define any group the state wanted to provide advantages as "disadvantaged group", even when they were not a minority.
I wouldn't trust the European Union to be the one that will challenge that German mobilization register at all.
COVID-19 has proven that if anything, the European Union tends to spread national initiatives among other countries (and Germany is often a leader in EU).
In this specific case, the EU is more likely to be the type of organization that would think about how to create a unified permit
-> as they did with the EU Digital COVID certificate; some sort of "I am in the register of mobilization" / "have a temporary travel authorization".
So, EU might be an enemy that pretends to be your friend there.
Humbug. Defence policy, especially how the EU member states choose to organize their military forces, is very much in the hands of the individual countries. A majority of the member states don't even have conscription anymore.
Yes, there is the common security and defence policy, and the Article 42 of Lisbon and all that, but it all still relies on national systems.
That's interesting because on the face of it this none of the EU's business... but also typical of the EU and EU governments to expand what is thr EU's business little by little.
The whole existence of the EU has its background in the end of WWII.
> 18 April 1951 – European Coal and Steel Community
> Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past. The six are Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The European Coal and Steel Community comes into being in 1952.
Absolutely not. What you quote is beside the point and irrelevant.
Defence and the military is a sovereign matter that has nothing to do with the EU... except we are seeing that this is changing without democratic national mandates.
I can only repeat that defence is a sovereign matter in which the EU has no power, but there is a trend of changing this by making it happen as "fait accompli", especially since the war in Ukraine, which is used as pretext.
Theoretically yes, practically no. The ECJ can order the revision of national laws, but the country in question is responsible for implementation, and can send plaintiffs on a multi-decade merry chase. Several countries have also taken the view that they can refuse changes to their constitutions. This stands on shaky ground legally, but there is no real enforcement mechanism anyway.
Yeah, the law is unjust but spare even this part of the population this unnecessary risk. It's not like they can't join if they want to but why put force on it? So everybody feels miserable? What's the point?
A lot of draft laws haven't been touched in a long time and aren't updated for modern gender politics. Though I do wonder if they'll actually get updated ever - no politician wants to touch it and it's not like anyone is screaming for the right to be forced to go die in war.
It's always weird to me how surprised women are that every single man they know has had to specifically, actually physically ink paper to sign up for the draft. It definitely feels weird/spooky when you do it, given the implications and that despite being compulsory it's not automatically done for you.
To clarify: every young person regardless of gender is legally obliged to go through fitness testing for conscription and if deemed suitable must go through it if selected. I imagine it’s roughly similar in Denmark?
Up until the fall of the USSR ~all men did go through conscription/basic military training. After the fall only the ones that wanted to and were selected did. Now it’s ramping up massively.
> and that despite being compulsory it's not automatically done for you.
I though it was weird that the United States had a requirement for people to physically sign a paper to do it. It looks like only this year they made it automated.
> Beginning on December 18, 2026, the Selective Service System will be required to identify, locate, and register all male (as assigned at birth) U.S. residents 18 to 26 years old on the basis of other existing federal databases. Men will no longer be required to register themselves or be subject to penalties for failing to do so. This was noted to be the most significant change to Selective Service since the self-registration system began in 1980.
both are already tied to residence registration (which is mandatory in germany, because it defines where you pay taxes). there is no need to register for the draft. it is automatic, once you turn 18 you get the letter to get tested if you qualify.
If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.
Women have been treated similarly to children. Fewer rights, but also fewer responsibilities. Feminists are very vocal about the rights but not too bothered about the responsibility.
This is false, overwhelmingly MALES. For a time, males couldn't leave Ukraine, while females could. Those who go to die on the front in all wars are mostly males. Doesn't mean that females aren't casualties as well, they are.
Always funny to see the most blatant lies be so forcefully put forward. Men were drafted while women were evacuated to the West. There are literal videos of that all over the place.
The intersection of parties wanting to reinstate compulsory military service and parties supporting gender equality doesn't currently have the necessary supermajority to change the constitution. So we get a wishy-washy compromise, as is so often the case in democracies.
Starting 2026, Ukraine at least has restrictions on women leaving the country as well.
Women in the civil service, law enforcement agencies, or those registered in the military and serving under contract may face restrictions on traveling abroad, particularly for non-official purposes.
You mean "some women in specific situations", not women in general. 2 weeks ago my cousin's wife and her 2 daughters got in an out for my aunt's funeral, in Ukraine. She is 50 years old, former teacher, no restrictions, the daughters are in the early 20, no restrictions either.
Right, a lot of the draft law being male-only reflects a combination of the reality that, relatively speaking, not much war has been waged since the end of WW2, and that much of contemporary gender equality is still somewhat new on a historical basis. So they're really just out of date laws with not much of an impetus to update, at least until recently. The worldwide trend is pretty clearly in the direction of making service and conscription, where needed, more gender agnostic. There are still some realities that don't really change here, such as men being most useful for direct combat, so even if women are conscripted it's likely they'll still avoid much of the worst of warfare simply by virtue of not qualifying for stringent standards.
Most roles in the military require ad hoc applications of brute strength to do the job competently even if it isn't per se part of the job description. This includes things like operating vehicles, desk jobs, etc.
In the military context, almost every job must be performed in the field or in the absence of (working) machinery. You still must be capable of carrying the equipment load-out for your role on your back. The inability of women as a class to do this effectively has been a longstanding issue. Everyone is at risk of being thrust into combat situations due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. The "rear echelon" can suddenly find themselves no longer in the rear.
All of which is separate from the question of the use of conscription generally.
In the US there is a separate gender-agnostic authority that allows the US to impress someone into non-military service for (IIRC) 6 months.
None of this disqualifies women from service. Of course, special forces and frontline troops will face these challenges day-to-day, but women who can't handle this will simply wash out from those. Which is not a big problem; only a tiny percentage of the military comprises these.
It affects a far broader swath of military roles than you are imagining and you are regularly required to assume secondary roles, few of which are anything like their civilian counterparts. This is the issue long-recognized by the military from experience. It isn’t an arbitrary disqualification of women. Even combat units don’t deal with these challenges day-to-day but they occur often enough for most roles that you need to be capable.
I am against all conscription on principle but I know why militaries made the pragmatic choice to selectively target men even if I don’t agree with it. These things have been studied to death, been put into practice by many countries, and the solutions are all quite bad in their own way.
Strict gender-blind standards drives strong gender segregation by role which in practice produced adverse second-order consequences. Also political blowback in a number of countries because the roles most women could qualified for in practice were perceived as lower status. Unequal standards create a whole raft of other social and operational problems.
To put it another way, all of these problems exist even in the absence of conscription.
Going to assume this phrasing is an awkward translation, but we can see how this works out in tolerant nations with conscription like Thailand. Typically, trans women who are already on a medical pathway are medically excluded from military service. This is less an affirmation of who they are by the military and more of a frank admission that their current state could never be made combat-ready. It's likely that even if SHTF, this would remain the status quo, because it's difficult to imagine draft resisters taking estrogen simply to avoid service. Even if treatment is largely done via informed consent, medical exclusion would likely require blood levels be in a certain range, or certain surgeries performed.
As far as I know as long as the change was made outside of an ongoing conflict and it's reasonable to assume it wasn't done to evade a potential one, it would actually protect you from being sent to your death
IDK about legal situation, but I know people who transitioned in both directions and they tell me that the hormones they take do make a big difference to strength and resiliance.
There is an actual answer to this, don’t listen to the random people replying saying stuff like “because the CDU is in power” or whatever.
The actual answer is because the constitutional instrument that allows conscription (Artikel 12a Grundgesetz) is explicitly limited to men. Therefore women are not subject to conscription in Germany, unless the constitution is changed.
Perhaps if the constitution were written today instead of in 1949 it would include women too.
You are misinformed and it is pretty much because of the CDU/CSU. There was a chance to change it with the help of the CDU just after the election but before the last government got dissolved the CDU objected...
In addition to the legal point regarding the constitution: A lot less people in those roles you listed, die. The compulsion is necessary for the state to get enough people to go die - or at least, seriously risk their lives - for it on the battlefield.
Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.
Well women are the rate limiting factor in having more men produced for war fodder.
It probably makes more sense to ban birth control at the same time men are required to die for the war machine as both would then be playing out their slavery-induced biological role in ensuring survival of the nation. That is if you're down with the whole slavery for war thing.
That’s essentially what the commenter is proposing when talking about banning birth control. This would be equivalent to compelling women to reproduce (or forego sexual relations, which in reality most people won’t do).
Most actively wars are over long before the replacement rate starts to matter, and women that get pregnant or raise children will in all likelihood get an excemption from frontline duty.
How so? Why isn't the question 'Why is anyone being forced at all?' Their question assumes that someone has to be forced, which I fundamentally disagree with, so they should justify that assumption first.
> And the answer is that women are equal to men in all things, except when things get serious, and then all of a sudden biology matters again
Correct. They are equal, so I don't think either men or women should be forced.
Not only violence. There are plenty of concerning situations in which you all of a sudden stop putting middle-manager women in email jobs or HR/DEI finger-wagging jobs.
When things get existential, the jobs favored by men multiply and the jobs favored by women decrease. And nowhere more than in countries and societies which are highly feminist and supportive of women, which seems counterintuitive but isn't.
That was also true of much of the feudal or monarchist European wars in the centuries before WWI. In the near term before the "democratic" era around WWI wars war largely seen as wars of the aristocracy and armed forces. Merchants could usually ~freely come and go between countries at war and you could generally pass to a country you were at war with without common people seeing you as an enemy. Wars also tended to be less "all or nothing" where the other side was evil and had to be destroyed and were seen more as property and rights disputes of the elite where armed force was a negotiating tactic or strategic use to assert some particular right.
It wasn't until the scam of 'democracy' fooled people into thinking war was against the actual people of the other country that they not only scammed everyone into having such buy-in and stakes for the war but also to view the other countrymen themselves as the enemy. People started viewing the nation of themselves because their laughable miniscule influence of their vote somehow means the government is of them. (Note this was a resurface of course, there were times in history where war was seen as against a peoples rather than of the elite).
Stop reading Curtis Yarvin's pseudo-history. Like 8 million people died in the Thirty Years War before modern democratic states, and there's plenty of other examples.
Figures I’ve seen say over 700,000 casualties in the British Army alone.
3.7 million served in the Army, which is a fairly high proportion when compared to the age range suitable for military service. Add in the Navy and RAF and you get to nearly six million. Those that didn’t serve were generally needed at home - roles like doctors, miners, police, or were too young or too old to fight.
The British, unlike many European countries, had time to mobilise those forces. Had they lost the Battle of Britain and had Germany commenced a land invasion of Britain then it’s likely the numbers would have been a lot lower.
In the case of a typical war of conquest, fighting pretty much stops as soon as one nation surrenders. However, no nation state in the world asks, 'How can we save the most lives?', instead asking, 'Do we have enough people to send to their deaths to potentially preserve our monopoly of power?'
Of course, at the beginning of every war, some people genuinely believe that joining and defending the nation they live in is in their best interests, but these numbers quickly drop over time. As history and current events show, states start to use forced conscription in every prolonged war at some point.
Trans women are not male, including biologically if you assume HRT. This is overcompensating rationality to shit on a group of people that are functionally intersex for "biological" distinction.
And we're not even talking about a context where biology matters. You just wanted to vice signal.
If you want to make this an SBGG criticism, I'd love to see you even get close to proving abuse beyond singular instances. Even all the right-wingers that said they'd change their gender marker to make a point did not. Because people don't do that lightly.
Setting aside arguments over biology, avoiding getting sent to war to be blown to pieces wouldn't be a "light" reason to consider claiming gender diversity.
What are the consequences of changing the marker? Does it impose legal requirements on people or is it a matter of identity alone? Just curious why people don't take it lightly. Identity is important so that will suffice as an explanation.
EDIT: I'm rate-limited on comments, so if you come back here and read this, thank you for sharing from experience.
I'll give Germany credit insofar that it matters less than one would think. The only identifying documents that carry this information are passport and birth certificate. Social security number if you know how to read them.
You will still have to deal with a ton of bureaucratic overhead and little moments where this is disclosed. For instance, your health insurance (and doctors) will usually know (the marker, not that you're trans, i get endometrial cancer screening recommended to me) and start to bicker about non-standard healthcare (i.e. I can get my estradiol tested at my GP, but for testosterone I need to see an endocrinologist) and your social security / employer will know (I also have at least 3 aliased social security numbers at this point).
Pure gender marker changes absent a name change are a lot less common, so it's not exactly well known territory.
They are male. It is one of the definitional criteria. In gender identity parlance, it is the attribute that distinguishes "trans women" from "cis women". The latter of whom are female.
Most of the opposition to women in the army comes from conservatives, not from feminists. They imagine themselves injured in the trenches in need of being carried by a fellow soldier, and they conclude that women are too weak.
If a woman wants to join the army, that's great, let her and let her do the job she's best at. Even combat, I fully believe that some women can excel with unequaled merit.
I'm talking about conscription. The state grabbing women who want nothing to do with war and forcing them into the army. That's what happens to men. They say it's necessary, I guess they're probably right in various contrived scenarios, but historically it has very often not been necessary and a lot of good men were murdered by politicians for no good reason. I don't know how to fix this problem, but why would you ever advocate for deliberately dragging more women into it?
In measuring grips strength, which is a good proxy for general strength, 90% of females producing less force than 95% of males. In other words almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
Some of the best pilots ever have been women. Whatever the population distributions are, if a woman wants to join she should be permitted to, with no presumptions about her limits. You risk never finding some of the best talent if you shut out women.
Why would they use it at all? Women have been US military soldiers for a long time. Every one of them could have had their grip strength, body strength, etc. measure - if those additional details were predictive of anything useful.
But why? Do drone controllers require massive amounts of grip? The keys for the transport coordinator keyboards require 20 pounds of pressure?
Few things in the military require brute strength. And those women who have that strength shouldn't be rejected simply because they are women.
Pragmatically, the main reason that has been true throughout all of history is that women are more valuable reproductively. A country can lose half its men in a war and still recover. The same is not true if it loses half its women.
Pragmatically, the main weapon in most wars were arrows and swords.
Pragmatically, most of the military is far from the battlefield - or the battlefield is on home territory, in which case everyone is involved anyway, so train 'em all and let the Night Witches fly, as the Soviets did when they needed more fighting forces against the Germans. "Some 400,000 women fought for the Red Army on the front lines"[1], and were not saved for later potential reproductive use.
Pragmatically, women are much more more than a baby gestation machines.
Since you have no problems with sterile women (tubes tied, no uterus, etc.) in the military, there's really no need to jump into a thread about rejecting ALL women from the military based on hand group strength.
I’m vehemently against the draft in general. I saw this war coming over a decade ago and live as an expat in part to avoid being press ganged into drone target duty.
Grip strength is a proxy for general strength, and I think it’s safe to assume strength is important in combat.
Yes, calling one's self "expat" instead of "immigrant" sounds exactly like what someone who goes elsewhere to avoid taxes and draft service, while driving up the local housing market and enjoying cheap labor, would do.
Again, if strength is important, then use strength as the draft criteria, not gender.
And, you do realize that the vast majority of the military aren't combat troops, right? Drone operator duty doesn't require high grip strength. Logistics managers don't require high general strength.
Is your sexism blinding you to the female soldiers who served in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan? What do you think they were doing if not being soldiers?
A small set of counter examples do not invalidate broad generalizations. And if my state wants to commit economic suicide and there is no way for me to stop it I feel no need to join it.
Over 300,000 women were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
You have no idea what their grip strength was. You have no idea what their overall strength was. You have no idea if their duties required that strength, or if endurance, focus for long periods of time, ability to work in a group, were more imports.
Did you learn your grip strength factoid on some men's rights podcast?
Not sure Iraq and Afghanistan are the best examples of success.
I do have a good idea what their grips strength were, the US armed forces do such studies all of the time, sometimes they publish them. The statistics around this are well known. Grip strength is used as it's a good proxy and easy to do in an informal setting.
I'm very interested in health and resistance training is a part of that. I'm also interested in the social phenomena of certain ideological groupings of thought, such as 'healthy at any size' and 'women are exactly equal to men'.
You're again giving some strong manosphere podcast vibes here.
The US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are no more due to women than the US failure in Vietnam was due to men.
If grip strength is so important, then test for that. The military can easily do that at the recuitment center.
Otherwise it's the social phenomena known as sexism. That means rejecting a professional lumberjack simply because she's a woman, while accepting a less capable man because you've got a recuitment quota to meet.
An army that can't mold recruits to perform all the duties expected of a soldier is no army at all. Boot camps include a healthy amount of physical and endurance training.
Even with training the gap still persists, albeit to a lesser extent. Elite females are roughly as strong as the median male (without any extra training post drafting).
Why does the gap matter if the floor is adequate to complete assigned tasks?
There exist gaps between men as well; not everyone in a corp has to be a special forces operator! There's nothing physically grueling about pressing buttons, welding, driving, operating machinery or pushing on a joystick.
I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons:
1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, women basically took over all the manufacturing jobs that men left when they went to war, and it helped shore up the industrial base and, in the end, helped lead to an allied victory.
In a place like Israel, there are so few people that it doesn't make a massive difference. If half the men get taken out, its not like the 2-3 million remaining women are going to be able or even want to "repopulate" so rapidly (not to mention that Israel has an interesting setup where a small section of the women make up the majority of the births--the ultra-orthodox--and the majority probably aren't having kids anyway).
I'm in a country ~5mil population (less than israel's) where men are conscripted and there is a fair amount of angst regarding their sacrifice. IMO, the cause is a mix of patriarchy and voteshare.
Factor #2 is no longer true, nowadays more and more stuff is being produced by machines. Moreover women can pick up guns. Drones can be piloted. Lethality is only going to go up.
No one sane would want to go fight in a war where lethality is high. Nor train for something that requires looming, recurring obligations for a good 10-20 years of their life. This is real sacrifce. If you want respect, at some point you have to put skin in the game.
Easier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
Well, you see, if men stay alive, but women are killed, society collapses eventually as not enough new people are born. It sucks being a man in this scenario, but it is what it is.
And if you include women (well, all genders) directly in the war efforts you double the amount of soldiers you have, which would increase your chance of winning and not needing to repopulate.
The key here is to refuse fighting. Nobody becomes a hero by becoming a murderer whose goal is to defend the political power of Stalin, Napoleon, Bush, or whoever.
I suspect one tool governments across the world will resort to when they get desperate about sub-replacement fertility is changing mandatory conscription from males to the childless. Quite strong incentive, not be sent to the meatgrinder.
>Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster.
This is Europe. Women won't have more children, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
>Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime.
This is Europe. Women won't take over a large share of industrial labor, they'll just vote to import another 10 million MENA migrants.
> 2008 – 80 intact warheads, of which 50 are re-entry vehicles for delivery by ballistic missiles, and the rest bombs for delivery by aircraft. Total military plutonium stockpile 340–560 kg.[186]
They probably have way more now 18 years later though.
> They probably have way more now 18 years later though.
I wouldn't neccesarily think so. Nukes are really expensive to create and maintain, but once you have "enough" getting more doesn't really provide much additional benefit.
I had to give up on diff-so-fancy because it would break a lot when used with `git diff --patch` but this post just reminded me of the issue and it turns out that it has recently been fixed, so I may give it another go.
Something like "AnIteratorObjectWithPersonPointer" would be a long word, "person" is absolutely not. If a 6 letter identifier causes you that much trouble with code being too verbose, then it's likely a screen resolution/density/font issue, not a naming issue.
> That would make “ProductIndex” superior to “i”, which doesn't add any clarity.
And then you introduce extra two levels of nested loops and suddenly "i", "j", and "k" don't make any sense on their own, but "ProductIndex", "BatchIndex" and "SeriesIndex" do.
And then you introduce extra two levels of nested loops and suddenly "i", "j", and "k" don't make any sense on their own, but "ProductIndex", "BatchIndex" and "SeriesIndex" do.
ijk for indices in loops are actually clearer than random names in nested loops precisely because it is a *very common convention* and because they occur in a defined order. So you always know that "j" is the second nesting level, for instance. Which relates to the visual layout of the code.
You may not have known of this convention or you are unable to apply "the principle of least astonishment". A set of random names for indices is less useful because it communicates less and takes longer to comprehend.
Just like most humans do not read text one letter at a time, many programmers also do not read code as prose. They scan it rapidly looking at shapes and familiar structures. "ProductIndex", "BatchIndex" and "SeriesIndex" do not lend themselves to scanning, so you force people who need to understand the code to slow down to the speed of someone who reads code like they'd read prose. That is a bit amateurish.
> ijk for indices in loops are actually clearer than random names in nested loops precisely because it is a very common convention and because they occur in a defined order. So you always know that "j" is the second nesting level, for instance. Which relates to the visual layout of the code.
In problem domains that emphasize multidimensional arrays, yes.
More often nowadays I would see `i` and think "an element of some sequence whose name starts with i". (I tend to use `k` and `v` to iterate keys and values of dictionaries, but spell `item` in full. I couldn't tell you why.)
I partly agree, and partly don't. When ijk really is unambiguous and the order is common (say you're implementing a well-known algorithm) I totally agree, the convention aids understanding.
But nesting order often doesn't control critical semantics. Personally, it has much more often implied a heuristic about the lengths or types (map, array, linked list) of the collections (i.e. mild tuning for performance but not critical), and it could be done in any order with different surrounding code. There the letters are meaningless, or possibly worse because you can't expect that similar code elsewhere does things in the same nesting order.
I think I know what you mean. Let's assume a nesting structure like this:
Company -> Employee -> Device
That is, a company has a number of employees that have a number of devices, and you may want to traverse all cars. If you are not interested in where in the list/array/slice a given employee is, or a given device is, the index is essentually a throwaway variable. You just need it to address an entity. You're really interested in the Person structure -- not its position in a slice. So you'd assign it to a locally scoped variable (pointer or otherwise).
In Go you'd probably say something like:
for _, company := range companies {
for _, employee := range company.Employees {
for _, device := range employee.Devices
// ..do stuff
}
}
ignoring the indices completely and going for the thing you want (the entity, not its index).
Of course, there are places where you do care about the indices (since you might want to do arithmetic on them). For instance if you are doing image processing or work on dense tensors. Then using the convention borrowed from math tends to be not only convenient, but perhaps even expected.
reply