The part west of the mountain chain is Transylvania, where the Hungarians hid after they decided to stop marauding. They even hired Germans to build cities in the mountain passes to protect them from the next set of nomadic steppe raiders to get a gleam in their eye and head west
The strategy held until the first Mongol invasion. By that point the settled Hungarians had gotten soft and forgotten how to steppe nomad, so the Mongols ate their goulash. After that, Hungary doubled down on the "make Germans come and build fortified cities" strategy. It worked!
These fortified Saxon cities built as Mongol repellent are the reason Transylvania is called "Seven Cities" in many languages. The point of all this is that you should visit Transylvania if you can, because you can eat Hungarian food in lovely Saxon cities with Romanian wine.
Also during the Mongol invasions a big horde of pagan Turks showed up begging for shelter, and the Hungarians were cool with it. They completely assimilated (just as the O.G. Hungarians had done) by the 19th century, adding irony to the current Hungarian freakout against refugees
The Hungarian decision to settle down and do some agriculture surrounded by the biggest mountains available stands in sharp contrast to the Polish approach of "eh, let's just build on the flat part that connects Europe to Asia and see what happens."
The other great reason to visit the region is that you can use this ATM and talk to yourself like Dracula. "I vant to make a vitdrawal, aha ha ha ha"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's the actual chart when you're not trying to make a ridiculous point. The key lesson in the chart is that the future of climate mitigation depends on either convincing 2/3 of humanity to stay poor, or orchestrating a massive global clean energy development program.
Put another way, we can continue to sell climate mitigation as "the good times are over" in the rich countries, or make it into a decarbonization gold rush that makes a lot of people rich (and hated on this site) while electrifying the poorest and most populous countries.
The unintentional lesson in this map is that for Boston, it doesn't really matter much whether we stop emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow or just relax and keep on going. The 1.5º C of warming responsible for most of the flooding is already baked in.
This fallacy comes up a lot in the discussions of climate change. Because so much warming is already locked in, the baseline for comparing various future scenarios should not be how things look today. That is an unattainable future goal unless we start doing crazy geoengineering.
When you stop framing the climate question as "can we save Miami?" and replace it with the more correct "can we save West Palm Beach?", it becomes less motivating. People have done a poor job communicating how much future impact is already irreversible.
The web3 concept that is slowly congealing is an interesting inversion of web 2.0. Back then the idea was "build social websites and figure out the money part later." Today it's "build money stuff and figure out some non-speculative use for it later."
There are three non-fraud foundational problems with "web3":
1. No way to reference anything in the real world (oracle problem) 2. Immutable code makes any smart contract its own bug bounty. 3. Everything breaks (more) unless expensive distributed systems are run in perpetuity.
You can't write this off as idiotic because there may be serendipitous discoveries waiting, just like happened with the web 2.0 hype. But the money element is new and quite toxic. It's a set of legos where every lego is also an unregulated casino, ponzi scheme, and ransomware kit
Meanwhile on this site we're locked in some kind of conceptual battle over @Davidshor Thought when the actual Democratic governing strategy, almost a year after winning power, is "do nothing". I'd like to at least see a robust defense of that by a true believer.
Our political leaders created a huge buildup to bills that were supposed to make the New Deal look like chump change, went all-in on debt ceiling drama, and then just said "meh" about it all. That seems like a bigger political emergency than the specific content of these policies
At the moment we have a situation where a former Facebook product manager is advising a Facebook-reliant Congress on how to regulate an industry whose irredeemable business model she saw no problem with for eight years or more. And now the Facebook Supreme Court will hear all!
A key policy question is whether the surveillance advertising business model is intrinsically harmful or just needs lots of guard rails around it. You're not going to hear the first point of view articulated by anyone who worked for years at these companies, by definition.
This is pretty great. The undercover FBI agent you're trying to sell nuclear secrets to has asked you to leave a memory card in a specific location, but you're no fool. So to avoid getting caught, you bring your wife to stand next to you and keep a lookout while you crime.
The summary of the email exchanges is pretty great:
FBI: plz put the crime data in a location we picked
Criminal: lol no way. I'll upload it.
FBI: no we need it on a card.
Criminal: OK but I'll pick the place. Also I've never crimed before
FBI: No plz use our place.
Criminal: OK
I guess this guy's long drives *with his wife* to deliver classified information to a location an internet stranger told him to use gave this guy a lot of time to overthink how to safely communicate with that amazingly helpful stranger in the future. There is a parable here.