Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Styxhexenhammer666"
channel.
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@thewayfarer8849 : Most of academia consists of very narrow-minded, narrow-specialty "scholars," who think being expert at ONE THING makes them all-knowing and morally superior to everyone else, and especially anyone who disagrees with whatever narrative the New York Times or CNN is pushing on any particular day. Their reasoning powers are not that great, generally speaking. They're really good at memorizing facts long enough to pass a test, for the most part. And that's how they teach.
As a member of academia, I'm nothing special, but I do notice that I'm much broader than most of my peers (better read in history, especially, but other fields, generally), much more "live and let live" in outlook, and much more respectful towards people OUTside of academia. The more you learn about different subjects, the more humble you seem to get, because you realize nobody can do everything, and we all need each other, especially people who work with their hands, which requires a lot more brain work than even THEY appreciate, because to THEM, anybody could do what they do.
This is pretty common amongst people who are truly skilled at something. They look back and don't see themselves as God's Gift or anything. They just know how much time they put in honing their skills, and see it as more of a stick-to-itiveness thing than a talent thing. I feel the same way about MY skills. If you put in as many hours as I did on math, you'd probably be a better mathematician. Not talent. Just persistence.
In academia, though, people think that because they put in all those hours, they're somehow more gifted than everybody else, because they more than most people about one thing. In the workaday world, people don't put on such airs, but I see a good dry-waller doing what would take me 100 hours in 1/2 hour, and doing it better, and I'm just as impressed by that as I'm impressed by a historian who knows what day Socrates was born.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
I disagree. The slow escalation could lead to a major break. As StormShadow and if ATACM, then Russia might say "Screw it!" Russia's been mobilizing, training, and blooding its forces, and are closer and closer to being able to just roll to the Polish and Rumanian borders. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are going all-out to impress NATO before the meetings, next week.
Ukraine's getting some propaganda footage, from Russian infantry retreating, but it's all of a piece. "Chase us. We retreat, and call in artillery." The Ukrainians do seem to have better precision munitions, but they don't have very many, and the West is hard-pressed to supply a strategically significant number of such munitions.
The Russians have a lot of tanks. If they decide to go all-out, they can sacrifice a lot of tanks to get a location on the batteries taking them out. Frankly, I don't think they'd have to sacrifice very many tanks, and may even rig up some remote-controlled vehicles just to draw fire. I think the Ukrainians will run out of ammo long before they make a significant dent in an all-out, combined-arms assault. I think it's just a matter of time until Russia feels like it's ready.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14