• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


mbohu last won the day on November 23 2019

mbohu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Good


Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Mile-High Skydiving, Orange Skies Freefall Center
  • License
  • Number of Jumps
  • Tunnel Hours
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • Second Choice Discipline
  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. mbohu


    That simply makes no sense whatsoever, as an argument. If you are against the tyranny of the 51%, you'd be against the tyranny of the 49% (or 45%), no? The EC does not solve anything in this regard. (The constitution may, by saying that there are certain things that are non-negotiable, no matter if a majority wants them or not--but that's a different matter.) The only rational argument for the EC would be that states (or localities) are actually important,--rather than just people--and that rural areas, for example, may not get enough power, compared to population centers, because fewer people live there, and that may make it so that the concerns of these areas (which may be different than those of large cities) won't get enough play. (That may be what you meant, but it has nothing to do with the 51%) However, that really should already be taken care of by the proper division of powers between local, regional, state and federal governments. When you are electing one person (and their team) for the entire country, I don't think that should play a role at all.--but at least that could be a logical argument. There is also the fact that it's somewhat outdated, as so many people move around, and why should the power of their vote have anything to do with where they happen to be living at a given time? The "tyranny of the 51%", while a true concern, is not addressed by the EC whatsoever (as someone else pointed out, you could divide the population into many other arbitrary groupings, rather than location--and say that the majority should not freely govern the minority--are we going to assign electors based on race or sexual orientation, now? Or based on people who prefer Netflix versus Amazon Prime? However you divide up population, there will always be majorities and minorities. Location is not unique in this regard.) ...and in fact "the tyranny of the 51%" is beautifully addressed in parliamentary systems that have a relatively low bar for entry into parliament (5% or less), and in almost all cases the need to build coalitions between multiple parties in order to govern. Also, another way this problem should usually be addressed, is that, whoever is governing, should govern "for all Americans" and not just the ones that voted for him. Biden at least said that's what he wanted to do, in his speech at Gettysburg. That Trump isn't even pretending to have that intention, is one of the things that makes him so hard to accept for those that are not voting for him.
  2. But they are doing that right now. They are relying on third party fact checkers (Snopes, Politifact, AP Fact Check etc) They are following their listed Terms of Service and Community Guidelines and seem to get it right most of the time. They are under no obligation to do so, of course. Reviving an old post: I knew there was more to this: So, it's not a question of what FB and others are ABLE (or willing) to do in terms of fact checking or censorship (depending on what you believe, we probably call it fact-checking when it's about stuff we dislike and censorship when it's stuff we like) it's what can they be FORCED to do via lawsuits and threats: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/09/11/trump-biden-section-230-big-tech-zw-orig.cnn-business/video/playlists/business-tech/ While this is the one issue that Trump and Biden agree on (not really, though) it's probably something we should be against. And as they correctly mention at the end, it actually will make all these newer alternatives to FB disappear, as they do not have the budget to survive lawsuits or even to have someone check every single post a user may put onto their platform. I actually think that the compromise that is currently starting to be employed (leaving the content on the platform but posting links to fact checkers or pointing out inaccuracies) is not a completely bad solution.
  3. Yes, that's the "they are evil" explanation. The problem is: Given that about 50% of the population falls into that category, the options to deal with that are not great. (winning a civil war against them seems to be the "best" option) I'm sure greed can be a powerful motivator, but if it was the most powerful one, people would always vote in their economic interest, and it's been proven that they don't. In fact: Isn't this one of the things that drives us "liberals" crazy? That large portions of conservative voters seem to consistently vote against their own economic interests? No, I think, while self-interest is certainly part of the equation, it's not the most determining factor: People's internalized frames of reference, belief systems and "identities" seem to be more powerful--and the good thing about this is, that this gives an opening for dialogue and/or influence--if one bothers to understand them.
  4. Absolutely. Great point. People also tend to be holding different beliefs in different areas of their lives, so they may believe in nurturance in the family (progressive) and in strict authority in politics and economics (conservative) ...and of course the terms progressive and conservative (or left and right) are way too limiting. I prefer to look at a multitude of scales to define political positions and most have a side that is often associated with progressive and the other conservative, but it doesn't always match. For example (let's say left is mostly progressive & right mostly conservative): Collectivist--Individualist Nurturing Parent--Strict Father Exterior Causation--Interior Causation (as the primary factor for where to look for problems/solutions) Stepping on the gas--stepping on the brakes (in terms of evolution/change/progress) Liberalism--Authoritarianism Of course on that last one people may disagree strongly. I think the way I sorted it was how I used to perceive it (that the right is generally authoritarian). I am sure libertarians would disagree, but also parts of the left may now disagree (if not admittedly so, but through their actions and beliefs); so that one can certainly go either way. There are more, I'm sure. Again though, I think understanding where the other side is really coming from (not just thinking they are stupid, misinformed or evil--because we KNOW they don't see themselves as such) is critical if we want to have any chance of having any power for change. ---not because it is a nice thing, but because it gives us power, and of course it is also just soooo much more interesting. I know, not a popular attitude here...or pretty much anywhere else on "the Internets"
  5. I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.) This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues) If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point: George Lakoff on the strict father model
  6. Jumping in for a quick post, so I can attract some serious ass-whooping from both sides: This is idiotic! If one group can't simply say that the behavior shown in airdvr's video is simply unacceptable, violent and in no way tolerable (no matter that there is collective trauma that has affected groups of people in this country for centuries and is now bursting out) and has to instead redirect towards making it someone else's fault (sure: Trump's at fault for many things, but not the individual behavior of these specific people--that is just an entirely different topic) ...and the other group of people cannot simply state that it is absolutely unacceptable behavior to kneel on an unarmed man's neck until that man dies from suffocation (irrespective of what that man may have done before) and has to redirect to some drugs he supposedly has taken before (if that is even true, it has NO bearing on that behavior WHATSOEVER--just like it has no bearing on the behavior of the group of people in the video what Trump may have done.) I mean: it really seems like we are living in some alternate reality. (I would have expected better from "my" side of the divide at the very least)
  7. Yes, but at this point FB, Twitter, etc. are really becoming more like a utility or a channel for public discourse. They may be privately held but they are the main channels to get your message heard in the social media space. There really are no comparable alternatives. I don't think that's something we can ignore.
  8. This may be controversial, but I really don't think that this is such a simple issue. You are probably right that Zuckerberg's motive is purely profit. But: Giving a private company the power to decide what is accurate and what is not and to censor posts based on that, is hugely problematic. Yes. I know: FB is not a public forum, legally, and in essence the company already has that power--but there is an argument to be made about keeping algorithms more or less content-neutral (same with Google search algorithms) and not considering anything about truthfulness or even morality (up to a point--of course there will always be some line to be drawn.) Asking FB to censor posts will likely backfire tremendously. It also puts them into an impossible position. Based on what exactly should they censor posts? If everything that is not completely truthful gets censored, not much will be left--and how do they even research what is truthful and what isn't? Will there be any oversight of that? Right now, you can post all kinds of anti-FB and anti-Zuckerberg stuff right on their platform and it will not be censored. At least this is consistent. Not saying there aren't real problems with the effects of FB and other social media on our society--but I don't think the solution is asking private companies to become arbiters of what is true and what isn't. I don't have a magical solution, but I wonder if a growing up of our general consciousness (really learning to be discerning and getting wise to manipulation and falsehood) isn't the only way out (and is that ever realistic?...I don't know.)
  9. I think you're right. Or in more general terms, the problem is that delivery of news isn't a one-way street anymore. Instead of the content just flowing out in one direction, it is now a 2-way street, where feedback is immediately received by the ones who put out the news. One would think that's a good think but in reality it creates all kinds of feedback problems, where the news gets changed based on the response from the audience (usually to achieve a certain purpose: profit and persuasion seem to be the main ones) The same problem is happening with voting and political messages: The constant polling feedback tempts politicians to constantly adjust their messages (and their politics) to the feedback they are receiving. Again: Ideally, this could be a good thing--but in reality there is no honest, direct uncorrupted message put out anymore. The question is: Is there a point where information flow should actively be limited to avoid such effects? If it SHOULD, is there any real chance that we will be able to implement such limits?
  10. mbohu


    Clearly I'm a very occasional poster, and given the length of this thread, and the fact I only occasionally read some of it, this may have come up before, but: WWG1WGA Doesn't that strike you as a very strange kind of slogan for people who call everyone else "sheep" and tell them they need to "wake up" and not blindly accept what they are being told? I mean, it's one thing to somehow not notice how you are just believing everything some anonymous person(s) is telling you, and not really be aware of it, and it's a completely separate thing to put that right in your slogan and STILL not notice it? no? Edit: I mean, if sheep had a slogan, that would surely be the one.
  11. Best 4-way competition exit ever. I definitely want to try to duplicate it: http://www.omniskore.com/comp/2019/2019uspanspc/media/3_221_4222_1.mp4
  12. Yup. That sounds like AFF for many people. As long as the fun/excitement outweighs the rest, just stay with it. The plane ride and door fear definitely does go away eventually, but for some people it takes 10-20 jumps, for some up to 100 to completely disappear. If you stick with it, it WILL go away, at least in my experience.
  13. I have them and I do like them, but since it's the only booty suit I had in the last 2 years I can't say for sure how they compare to the regular cordura booties. Essentially they have a couple extra pieces of fabric that create an air channel, which inflates them when you put your legs fully into the airflow (see red circle). I probably notice it most, when tracking away. I sure get a lot of forward push and lift from my legs. My measurements were also slightly off and the booties are a bit longer than they should have been, so they don't fully stretch out until I point my toes to the max, and I think that air channel helps to counteract that, inflating them a bit more, even when I don't have them stretched to the max. In the picture you can also see that this is an extra area where the stitching can come off (bottom left of the fabric--so in that picture they are actually not quite doing their job), but that took about 2 years of regular usage and was extremely easy to fix. A rigger sowed it back on within 5 minutes.
  14. I'm not a DZO or airplane expert, so I'm not sure what the definition of a "short" Caravan is, but Orange Skies Skydiving in Colorado is flying this one:
  15. Somebody's got to disagree: (not about the equipment--definitely don't try to buy equipment too early and no reason to worry about it now. I waited a year and just over 100 solo jumps, because I wanted to try out a few different canopies before deciding, and am super-happy I did.) But I did read this book right as I was doing my first AFF jumps. When you can't jump and are itching to do so, this is a little bit of a substitute, and it won't send you down the wrong road, in my opinion: https://www.amazon.com/Parachute-Its-Pilot-Ultimate-Ram-Air/dp/0977627721