Judging from those quotes, the stance is also old, and tired. Nothing new there. — Ciceronianus the White

Why create something new, when the old still works?

Just wait for a new generation to come around, and then repeat the old dogmas. They are new ideas again, because nothing ever happened before me!

Personally, I tend to believe that society must urgently depoliticize itself and start taking a more holistic view of itself and of its problems. The interests of the whole, not of political factions or special interest groups must be made the primary concern. — Apollodorus

I disagree.

You cannot depoliticize the society. People simply disagree. That is human nature. Yet even if we disagree, we can make things together.

In a republic, politics has to function, democracy has to work. A representative system is the only way when the society is comprised of million of people. If you had the near perfect society, lot of people would disagree with the idea that it is perfect and have different opinions how to make it better. At the community level or in a mini-state, direct democracy can work.

When we simply accept that a) totally sane and intelligent people can have totally opposite views to what we consider sane and intelligent and that in the end b) voters are informed and intelligent enough for elections to guide the representative system, democracy will prevail. If we think that people can "vote wrong" or worse, that a large part of our fellow citizens represent a danger to the society, then we are in perilous waters.

Both leftist and right-wing populism tries to create a juxtaposition between "us" and "them" and seek basically to dehumanize the other side as the culprit of all problems in the society. Things don't deteriorate because nobody does anything and people let problems to grow bigger: the idea is that some people are on purpose creating the problems. With classic Marxism it's obvious with talking about the class-enemy, but the far right is totally on board with similar rhetoric, just with different culprits and scapegoats. It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy.

It's evident from where the author comes and what his personal stance is. Without having read the book (and it doesn't seem interesting), but by just looking at the quotes from the book, the vitriolic stance is quite evident. Nearly all quotes (that can be found for example here) talk about "The Left" as one all encompassing actor. And what Bolton thinks about the left is obvious from quotes like this:

The Left, laid bare of its ideological façade wrapped about by theories on economics and sociology, is simply a means of dragging humanity down to the lowest denominator in the name of ‘equality’.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery’.

I basically hate this approach: it doesn't take into account just how different let's say Western social democrats are from Western marxists and how those are different from Chinese marxists or the supporters of the leftist populist Maduro (and earlier Chavez) in Venezuela. The left isn't just Marxism-Leninism or Maoism.

Perhaps here the obvious error is that a similar psycho-history could be made about "the right", and very likely you would get similar results. It's basically scientism is used as a veil for a rant against the political movement you hate.

A thing which actual has been done already, actually.

A fitting example would be Theodor Adorno's "The Authoritarian Personality". There the member of the Frankfurt School (yes, that Frankfurt School) makes a "F scale", for pre-fascist personality, and goes on to measure traits like conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.

And of course, Adorno downplayed his Marxist roots and if we believe Apollodorus, Bolton doesn't either openly write about his influences either (which would be logical).

In the end I simply do not find this useful. Psychohistory doesn't work when your just looking for what are considered character flaws or negative traits.

In a rare occasion I would agree with here. Done with a different attitude, using psychology can perhaps be useful.

But hell, I'm paid an awful lot of money for my moronic guesswork so at least I've got something to cushion the blow... it's a wonder there's not more astrology consultants in the courts, corporations and civil service, they too could benefit from whatever mass deception I've inadvertently manged to weave. — Isaac

There are highly paid economists too, so... :wink:

Hollywood and the studio system is long gone, as is that worldview. There are other systems and worldviews in operation. — Tom Storm

If you refer to the Studio system lead by Eastern European Jewish immigrants, that has changed. But still the industry that is based in the US exists, even if the films and series are made physically in other places.

In the mid 20th century, most films were artful propaganda pieces — Tom Storm

Did that actually stop?

I think Hollywood still exists. I think this era will pass as did the other times too. From the mass of mediocrity (and hypocrisy) there still will come those pearls people will enjoy even later. Even if they are abhorred by the professional critics in Rotten tomatoes etc. today.

It was YOU who brought up Nazism not me. — Apollodorus

Wasn't it , immediately at the first reply on this thread?

Sorry, but if a book would be let's say about evolution, perhaps it would be good to know the author is a staunch creationist and a biblical literalist? Just saying...


Oh yes. Wonder how would Nietzsche do here.

Well, I didn't know that and you can't really blame it on me, can you? — Apollodorus

Quick google searches are easy to do and then you can know where people come from.

Or are you just upset that I started a discussion that's inconvenient to some people on the far left? — Apollodorus

I hope such questions could be discussed. But I think the Site guidelines ought to be noted:

Posters:

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

So no espousing... :up:

Just to refer to Kevin B. Macdonald, who was himself endorsing the mentioned author:

Kevin MacDonald (1994, 1998a, b) argues that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” According to his theory, Jews are genetically and culturally adapted to promote their own group interests at the expense of gentiles. Jewish genetic adaptations include high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism.

MacDonald’s (1998a) most influential book, The Culture of Critique (CofC), claims that several major twentieth-century intellectual and political movements—including Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical theory, and multiculturalism—were designed to destabilize gentile civilization for the benefit of Jews. The movements, led by “strongly identified Jews,” attacked group identity among white gentiles while promoting separatism and ethnocentrism for Jews. They “pathologized” anti-Semitism in order to squelch resistance to Jewish control.

Yep, Frank, what quacks like a duck...

But let's have an open mind with Apollodorus. He or she wasn't promoting the book, or?

The book has nothing of that sort in it at all. Plus, it's been endorsed by psychology professors like Kevin MacDonald — Apollodorus

Oh boy, Apollodorus...

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB).[1][2][3] In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.[4]

Of course Wikipedia might be part of the character assassination, but hmm...

I think those films were exercises in stylization and were never meant to be taken at face value. The height of that stylization were then the Spaghetti Westerns. — baker

Westerns are an excellent example how a genre simply creates it's own separate reality from the actual history. TV and film in Westerns have always just put historical costumes on contemporary people. You can easily notice the differences in Westerns done in the various decades.

Westerns are an integral part of American culture, or at least were once.

The distinction I draw between your question and the question of the OP is that your question asks how to deal with those who have stolen land whereas the OP asks how to deal with racists. Yours includes an actual act, whereas the the OP includes only a mindset. — Hanover

How to deal with a cartoon figure-like racist is one thing, but racism or xenophobia go viral only if there is some actual act behind the reason (or can be fabricated as the reason) why these ugly ideas have become popular. Typically people don't hate others. There can be the individual with personal problems, but if you have widespread fear or hatred in a community between ethnicities or racial groups, there usually is a smoking gun buried somewhere in history.

And this act, which you later refer as trespassing to land is a crime, where do you draw the line? Sure, if it's you yourself that has illegally taken hold of the land belonging to someone other, there the reasoning is obvious. But how about when that land has changed hands in the most typical way in history, after a war? And there's no peace agreement and basically the claim to that land is nearly the only thing that the people who lost the war have as a strong connecting identity. And this can continue for centuries.

Doesn't matter then if "the theft" was "perpetrated" by the generation of your grand parents or great grandparents or a generation of your ancestors that you have no idea of. If the some people uphold the remembrance of the theft and think of you as the perpetrator, then there's the cause. That you have not known any other home than that town doesn't matter.

Finland is just the place for tad greyish...most of the year, early spring, fall, most of the winter months etc.

I'm all into the shift from post WW2 embedded liberalism to 80s neoliberalism. 70s stagflation was a critical ingredient. — frank

Lol. :lol:

Yes, inflation is coming. And the correct term would be stagflation.

What's the worst that could happen?

That we all will be millionaires. The few billionaires now quadrillionaires then.

And then the monsters come out to play.

Springtime in Finland? — frank

Springtime in Finland.

Stagflation? ? ?

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Ideas and views aren't a crime, actions and instigating others to act might be.

But anyway. So you have your neighborhood Nazi. Not just the odd crazy or the recycling-Nazi complaining that you recycle your trash improperly, nope, but a genuine Nazi that believes that your existence in the World is harmful. These kinds of racists are rare.

What would be more typical would be a neighbor that would say that you don't have the right to live specifically there where you are now living. Go live somewhere else. And here's the interesting question: leave out the obvious racism that you have depicted of the neighbor, when do people start to think that here you and your living in that town is really the problem?

What if you are a Jewish settler in the West Bank and the neighbor a Palestinian? Or you are a Moroccan in Western Sahara and your neighbor a Sahrawi?

People still have these ideas of some people being the "rightful owners" of some area, whereas others are occupiers, invaders. Even if the "invasion" has happened ten, hundred or thousands of years ago. Is it wrong to think like that?

Why is “the Left” called “loony”? — Apollodorus

I think that both political sides have their own share of what could be referred as "loony".

You can find their actions well documented by the media supporting the opposite side.

Ah! Misspelling. I meant "there". :yikes:

I started reading this thread from the beginning. Some posts have not aged well. — James Riley

Well count my first responses in that category! Benkei, like in and others put me into line that this was something serious and I was downplaying the risks. Yet that was on page 4, so it wasn't yet the age of the official pandemic and lockdowns.

I've always appreciated the intelligence and awareness of my fellow PF members. :up:

Yes, part of the myth.

Is that a good thing? — Banno

Yes.

It's a great thing when people are thought to be as good competent soldiers and the people to be determined to fight thanks to the past actions of their grandparents and great grandparents.

The actual reality might be different. But the myth is good for deterrence, to keep the peace.

So, being utilitarian for a change, what benefit accrued to Australia form our involvement there? — Banno

That the Americans don't start thinking you are showing them the finger and starting hating you as the do the French. (Remember "Freedom fries")

You still have their troops, btw. Just like us and the Swedes, who aren't even allies of the US. Actually there's now far more troops from other countries than from the US in Afghanistan.



And the Taleban is more stronger than ever, what else?

Kyllä (Yes).

On the other hand, the pandemic has been for us rather easy (compared to our western neighbour): the health system hasn't been under serious stress at any time during the pandemic. Now we are starting to easing off the restrictions.

(Knocking wood...)

Does it have to?

It seems that restraint in the use of deadly violence (yet otherwise maintaining a large crackdown), persistence and not backing down DOES make it. At least the Western media will get bored with it and not report it, so out of sight, out of mind.

How is the situation now in Hong Kong? I think that the Chinese authorities are now in control.

How is the situation now in Belarus? - Svetlana Tikhanovskaya was last month calling for 2nd wave of protests from excile. I haven't noticed huge demonstrations anymore though.

The situation is far more bleak than you portray it: the totalitarian regimes don't have to unleash a wave of all out violence like some desperate Ghaddafi clinging on power and bring the country into total anarchy, their security machines are working well.

As Possibility pointed out, in the context of a global culture, it distinguishes the European philosophical tradition, commencing with Greek Philosophy, from Chinese, Indian, and other cultures who have corresponding activities that can be reasonably designated 'philosophy', even if that is not a word that is native to their cultures. — Wayfarer

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. It's the historical narrative that we use to define our tradition that makes us view things like this. And usually that accepted narrative, "The Greeks - the Renaissance thinkers - the Enlightenment philosophers - etc" simply doesn't recall the role of any other traditions. Anything outside that is seen as unimportant.

What you were saying is that you don't personally care to spend on the topic currently, but maybe another time.

Perhaps then.

This is historically backwards. — Maw

If you think that Europe had the Roman Empire before in Antiquity, it isn't. at all.

Having huge cities like Rome or Constantinople means that you have to have efficient trade roots and an advanced economic system. First collapse of globalization would be how Antiquity ended. With case of last bastions of feudalism, let's say Imperial Ethiopia, the story is different.

I'm simply saying that, contra Bitter Crank, we shouldn't separate Democracy under politics and Socialism under economics. — Maw

So modern social democracy is the problem? For part of the left social democracy isn't socialism, yet I think it's been the most successful part of the broader leftist movement. And they are OK with capitalism.

Seems like the EU botched it up with the centralized vaccination program. As typical, where the EU, there a problem.

(By this stats, even Chile is beating the EU at this time)


So finally the US has gotten it's act up!

But I would disagree with Bitter Crank in regards to the a priori contrast between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic system. We know such a contrast was untrue for Feudalism, a social system whereby political elites obtained economic surplus by appropriating from the peasantry. This is an integration of the economic and political. — Maw

In Europe feudalism can be viewed as the result of when the state is incapable of gaining and upholding a centralized power. Simply put it, when those in power have basically no ability to create a central power, then the last option is to simply divide the land to your allies to the size that is governable. Yet for the pre-capitalist era the economic system referable to would be mercantilism as feudalism and mercantilism go quite well hand in hand. It is the remnants of mercantilism as the economic system that capitalism had to fight against and overcame in the 19th Century. Hence I think Bitter Crank does have a point because otherwise we won't notice the subtle differences between a political system and an economic one.

Thanks for sharing that lecture from Susan Haack. Yes, indeed careerism and bureaucracy are the pitfalls of modern academic research. One of the many great observations Haack makes.

There is an interesting debate to be had between democracy and capitalism and socialism but we won't find it here. — Maw

If that would happen, what in your mind would be the point of view and the most important topics on such a broad and complex issue? Assuming people could talk about the same issues, that is.

I think starts of well with saying:

But it is a mistake to oppose democracy and socialism: the former is a political system, the second is an economic system. Democracy is better contrasted to totalitarianism, and socialism is better contrasted to capitalism. — Bitter Crank

My point was that while something like bitcoin is in and of itself immune to inflation, it's not decoupled from the monetary system as a whole, which today is global and, as you say, everything affects everything. — Echarmion

Hyperinflation is basically the universal distrust in a currency being a store of value: people may need to use it, but know it's basically worthless. That the supply of a cryptocurrency is limited isn't a reason why the trust in the currency being a store of value couldn't be shaken too. Simply put it, both with a fiat currency and a cryptocurrency there has to be people who think it's worth it's price as payment and willing to trade or exchange it to something else.

Did this have anything to do with the swiss economy / banking sector or was it merely the perception that the Swiss franc was "safe" because of the reputation of the swiss banking sector? — Echarmion

The Swiss franc has had this role of being a "safe haven" currency, but naturally as the country is small there aren't so many Swiss franc going around.

As the Chairman of the Swiss National Bank puts it:

As a small open economy, Switzerland is highly exposed to external disruptions. Exchange rate movements in particular exert a major influence on inflation and economic activity in our country.

A further characteristic of Switzerland is that the Swiss franc, as a safe-haven currency, tends to appreciate when global risk sentiment deteriorates. In recent years, a number of crises – notably the global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis – have led to appreciations of the franc. What does the strong influence of developments abroad on inflation in our country mean for our monetary policy? It means that inflation can be controlled with even less precision than in the large currency areas. It is not possible – or only with disproportionate use of monetary policy instruments and correspondingly marked side effects – to always fully offset spillovers from abroad.

So basically what the Swiss are doing now is printing money and then buying financial assets with those francs...in order for the franc not to appreciate too much and make a problem. Which is crazy, but then a lot of things are indeed crazy now.

Here's a short video telling the incredible story of what the Swiss Central Bank is doing now. From last year (starts at 1min25s):


Central banks turning into hedge funds isn't something that is going to end well in my view.

Thanks!

Those have nothing to do with "monetary policy" the way I understand it — Echarmion

As I said, bit off from actual monetary policy. But I guess what is considered and accepted as money is monetary policy in the broader sense.

And governments cannot practically suppress currencies without some very draconian measures (which would also work against bitcoin) anyways. — Echarmion

Those measures start from what is legal tender.

That seems pretty much strictly negative from a social point of view. — Echarmion

Oh you would prefer 18th Century style dealings where your employer would pay your salary with his own currency, which you can use in your employers shops?

There's many negative aspects to private currencies also, you know.

I'd argue it's not an investment in the traditional sense at all. It's purely speculative with no commodification attached. — Echarmion

Well, the structure how it uses a peer-to-peer network and blockchain might be things on the plus side to it.

Possible, but bitcoin is already pretty well established. Though the chinese government will certainly be able to do something like this. — Echarmion

Likely it's the Western Central banks that may look at this.

A note to another conversation here:

Monetary policy of the US doesn't directly affect the purchasing power of EUR in Europe though. — Benkei

Not directly, but the effects will travel through the interconnected real economy to the EU regardless. — Echarmion

Ok, explain the mechanism to me how monetary policy in the US affects the price of buying milk in the Netherlands. If you can say this with such conviction you certainly have this figured out. — Benkei

There isn't one precise mechanism, but e.g. a loose money policy leads to more money going into speculative investments like futures, which affect global pricing / supply and demand. So if feed prices go up due to futures, the cost of producing milk goes up globally, affecting milk prices in the Netherlands. — Echarmion

Ok, perhaps here it's good to remind you that money in your country is a foreign currency in other countries. And this is how US monetary policy can indeed effect the price of milk in the Netherlands. And this is why actually the "demise of the Dollar" thanks to reckless spending isn't at all a clear cut case as the US is part of the global economy...and everything effects everything.

Let's take the hypothetical scenario that Joe and Kamala amp up the spending spree and print ten trillion dollars and the markets don't take it so well and finally truly panic. The Central banks are at each others throats so they let the dollar fall. So assume that the US dollar then collapses in one day to 1/3 of the price before of roughly in parity with the euro.

Now what do you think will happen?

Suddenly US milk is 1/3 cheaper in Netherlands and hence it's a great trade to export milk from the US to the Netherlands: many Dutch people will likely prefer to pay less for their milk and opt for the cheaper US milk. Also every goddam exporter in the Euro-area to the US (also those Dutch dairy product exporters) suddenly has this obstacle at the next day that the prices of their products just tripled in the US. Even worse for the Euro-area, the Chinese Yuan is pegged to the dollar and hence the Chinese would be crushing Euro-area exporters.

The simple outcome would be that the Dutch, alongside every Euro country, would have their export sector demanding ease with the "strict" monetary policy and for the ECB to devalue the Euro. Meanwhile in the US a Big Mac will likely cost what it cost yesterday before the dollar collapse as it takes time for inflation to happen and the US isn't your average run-of-the-mill Third World country.

This isn't far fetched as during the financial crises Switzerland suddenly found itself as a "safe haven" currency having it's franc roughly revaluing +20% towards the dollar and the euro. They had to go to negative interest rates (that people have to pay them for holding Swiss francs) and increase their monetary base, because the +20% jump in the Swiss franc was killing the important export market in a situation when the global market was already in a recession.

I don't really see the connection. Monetary policy affects bitcoin just as well, regardless of the "alternative" label. It's after all a big part of the reason it's market value is so high. — Echarmion

The "monetary policy" in Bitcoin is a) do governments allow it or not and b) do those using it believe in it's value or not. There's no government able to tax it's citizens behind it or any physical aspects that metals have. Bit off from what monetary policy currently is.

In many countries buying and selling isn't so easy as in Western countries. Holding foreign currency can be limited and the banking system a joke. There having bitcoin can be truly helpful in the role of medium of change. Yet it's extremely lousy as a unit of account as it goes up and down in price like a delirious rabbit. It's basically more of a medium of speculation than "store of value", but then again this is the time of the "everything bubble" where all "stores of value" are going up and down.

It's really an interesting discussion if bitcoin is truly a "safe haven" investment or not. The real risk with any so-called "safe havens", be it gold, the swiss franc or bitcoin is that IF there's a bursting of this bubble, all financial vehicles go down simply because people need to take cash from where ever they have them. The wonderful aspect of a margin call or as others call the phenomenon, asset deflation. Governments going after bitcoin is a typical thing in Third World countries, where the government has little control of the economy and desperately want's income. It could possibly happen here too, but then a lot has to happen before that.

Far more likely "threat" to Bitcoin is that it is replaced by a more "acceptable" cryptocurrency by those in power, which is then taken to use by the masses. I don't think that the majority of people have cryptocurrencies of today. Just like they can control the internet today, even if earlier people viewed the net as this bastion of freedom.

This thread's activity probably isn't a good index for tracking bitcoin's value. The thread was last active, save a handful of posts, around 6 months ago before it went up all that much. It was silent during most of the steepest rises. — csalisbury

When philosophers (or should we be more precise people who are interested in philosophy) are talking about investments, that is a sign for me. Basically this thread is active when the prices are high. A time to buy is when this thread hasn't been active for 6 months.

Yet I do respect especially the collective intelligence and understanding of what things are important. Cryptocurrencies aren't a fad or rubbish, they are something genuinely important. Just as, well, all those things that you had in the tech bubble in the turn of the Millennium. After 20 years those things have become really the norm. Even Amazon has made a profit now! Yet investing back then in Pets.com wasn't the greatest investment of all time. Who knows, bitcoin might be. Or not.



Sorry, but after experiencing few economic bubbles in my time gives me the chills of how things are now.

It's simply creepy.

(But I got finally my new computer from Asia. Whopee!)

Isn't he working for some fund, investment house or billionaire.

It's the typical place where mathematicians etc end up in: as quants. Why do something on thermodynamics in a physics department when you can use the same algorithms applied to day trading and be hired by a hedge fund? Knowledge about economics isn't needed.

Well, the simple fact is that sectors that aren't there to make money are then judged somehow by some metrics in order to be proclaimed to be efficient and worth wile the investment: how many students graduate, how many doctors are made, how many patents they get or how many academic articles are published and what is their impact factor.

Once when I was working at the Academy of Finland, I compared the Finnish universities to American ones. Basically if you would rap up every university in Finland (now 14) into one, the amount of academic publications would equivalent to the volume from MIT. That's just one American university, even if top of the line example. I think MIT had a lot more money and resources than the whole university sector in Finland. One of the true bastions of American exceptionalism.

When this thread goes out of fashion again for a year ...or even six months, that's when bitcoin is very interesting. At least it has dealt obstacles, that is for sure. But have we yet seen any collapse in crypto or something marketed as crypto?

Somehow I don't buy the "hyperinflation immediately" -idea, so I guess that we will have again a similar roller coaster ride in the financial markets as we had in last year.

Regarding the second part - as I've said from the get-go, I freely admit that I - like everyone on this forum - is not qualified to judge Weinstein's work. — csalisbury

I think could have a chance. I think he (or she) knows math.

Nobody does. Weinstein won't publish. — fishfry

Publish or perish.

That's the academic norm.

Or go off onto podcast-land, hmm?

I agree with your analysis in general, but I don't think that analysis applies to Weinstein. He isn't someone in academia who's been unwittingly dragged into the public eye, and so unfairly dunked-on. Rather he's someone who quite intentionally courts public attention, in the mode of provocateur, and tends to do so rather than engage in academia - for instance, his infamous dismissal of peer-review and so forth. — csalisbury

I'm not sure which of the two brothers caught fame first, but at least Bret Weinstein was dragged unwittingly into the public eye with the incredible events in an unknown university, who otherwise would have stayed as an total unknown.

I think the main reason is that the American public debate is and has been void of "common sense" academicians who once pushed into the media limelight appear different from the usual bunch, the celebrities, movies stars or politicians. Somewhere the intellect from your Hollywood-actors has to show and now with Youtube and other podcasts there can be these "long form" chats and there is an audience for them.

Again, I don't know the math or science, so I can't appraise him on anything but the indirect - but this feels an awful lot to me like symptoms of something like a personality disorder - intense grandiosity + a kind of disavowed shadow self that almost perversely projects stuff onto the outside (fitting the grandiosity, he doesn't project onto others, but onto the world.) Again: He has the key to restoring phsyics and America; without the key, we have EGOS that made people fake growth and become pathological. It's so on the nose, that it's surreal. It's like he's got some kind of perverse subconscious imp. — csalisbury

I think that there is the type of academic person like Eric Weinstein that isn't humble, bit confrontational and a provocateur as you said. They can come off as a bit hostile, but the solution is to disregard the manners and focus on what they say. Yet the actual message has to be treated separately of this, and to really judge the mathematics you truly have to know mathematics yourself. Usually people might have some point about the issue there are talking about. Very rarely is it totally false. The real issue is how relevant their point of interest is for the whole field and that's the hundred dollar question. Yet that something is wrong in the academic world isn't an outrageous or revolutionary thing.

Some famous hoaxes, like the Sokal hoax, have shown that peer review has it's failures, but I think the issue is more widespread. I remember my father (a professor of virology) saying that when publishing an article lets say in Lancet (he got I think one article published in the publication), from where you publish does matter. American top notch Ivy League university will easily open doors, something from the local University of Helsinki here might even pass, but good luck trying to get something published if you are from an university from Kano state, Nigeria.

I'm too considering getting getting a new computer and ordered a new one. They said they don't have any clue when the new computer will arrive from Asia. Hopefully this year, I guess.

Yet I think the chip shortage is more because of the pandemic problems on our wonderful globalized supply system than the "everything bubble".