Some people have observed that Iran's seizure of British soldiers would at most points in history be considered casus belli, and perhaps at least lead to naval blockade.

While I don't entirely disagree with the idea that some people consider what I would call cowardice a virtue, I don't think it completely explains the blasé attitude this is meeting with. I think there's a strong non-political component to it as well.

Western societies have grown by leaps and bounds over the past several hundred years. It takes a lot more to get our attention than it used to, because we are a much bigger society, and I think a strong case can be made that this is a perfectly rational outlook. A two-inch cut on a small child can be a big deal; the same cut on me is an annoyance. If the West went to war over every two-inch cut, we'd be in full-scale war, all the time; there's always another grievance to be converted to casus belli.

• First Law of Grievances: There's always another grievance.
  • Corollary to the First Law: A list of grievances can always be produced. Therefore, the information content of a list of grievances is zero, and is not useful for determining "fault" or any other purpose.
• Second Law of Grievances: My grievances are worse than your otherwise-identical grievances.
• Third Law of Grievances: Revenge never satisfies your grievance. It follows from the second law that what you perceive as a balancing of the scale will be overcompensation from your enemy's point of view. Net result: There's another grievance.
• Fourth Law of Grievances: The longer the Third Law iterates, the harder it is to escape from, because both sides will perceive the other side as ever-more in debt.

(I use "grievance" here as "a reason to hate someone or seek revenge". Something can be both a grievance and something else; for instance, an act of war is certainly a grievance, but it is also an act of war. It isn't rational to seek "revenge" for an act of war, but it can be perfectly rational to go to war for any number of other reasons; it may even be irrational not to.)

After a long search for what iRi is, I have finally found it, and now I'm taking the time to write it down, or at least part of it.

iRi is the leftover stuff in my life. Talking about politics, religion, ethics, science, programming, epistemology, all that jazz is important to me, but I can't talk about them in "real life" because talking about this stuff is really, really hard in the real world, due to the limits of the conversational form.

iRi is my platform for getting such things off my chest. As such, you are welcome to read it, but that is a secondary concern to me.

Per the recent news about TiVo and Amazon Unbox integration, and a $15 dollar credit for trying it out before April 1 (or so), my wife and tried it.

First, at least TiVo series 2 machines don't download very quickly, a problem I've already had trouble with when trying to download things from the TiVo directly. It's not much better with Amazon Unbox; a 42-minute TV program took quite a while to download, two hours at least. (We weren't obsessively paying attention.) This is definitely a TiVo problem, though, not an Amazon problem.

The commercial for The Last Mimzy attracted my attention, because it sounded an awful lot like the 1943 Mimsy were the Borogroves by Lewis Padgett. I'm not sure I can quite call it my favorite short story ever (there are so many other good ones), but it's in the top 5 for sure.

But I seriously doubted that, because Golden Age science fiction stories do not frequently make it to the silver screen, especially in the 21st century. And certainly not ones I like.

In the Star Trek the Next Generation episode The Outrageous Okana, it is revealed that the funniest comic in history was "'Stano Riga', a 23rd Century comic who 'specialized in jokes about quantum mathematics.'"

I've always wondered what kind of real-life situation would lead to someone being able to successfully become a comic with such niche appeal.

The answer, of course, is the Internet. In the last month I've been treated to two funny comedians that are very, very niche; one in classical and modern music, one in economics. And they are actually good, if you like the source material at all.

You'll need to read at least some of that piece to understand the ways I'm critical of it, but you don't need to read it all. Be sure to get the last paragraph (quoted in my post body).

I find myself agreeing with about a quarter of it, disagreeing with the reasons given but agreeing with the conclusions for about a third, disagreeing with the rest, and finding some of the implicit casual assumptions to come pretty close to "arrogant asshole".

All in all, a stimulating read, which is why I blog about it.

Reading over my web server logs, it's a little annoying how certain big-name web search crawlers will continue to ask for a file years after it's been removed. It's also annoying that some crawlers will get a permanent redirect, but years later, still have to retrieve the original page and then follow the redirect.

Makes it impossible to find any "real" 404s in my error log anymore.

Generally, when I'm this quiet, it's because I'm simply not writing for iRi. But this last month has been an exception; I've been implementing one of those things that made me write my own weblogging platform in the first place: "BlogBook"s.

A BlogBook is a way of tying together a series of posts into a cohesive whole like a book. It's intended to help with my larger projects that just don't fit into the "isolated weblog post" mold, because they require too much context.

This ("Who's Pretending?" on Townhall) I can't vouch for one way or another, but it reminds me of something I've been meaning to post about lately.

Every year, the wisdom of "actions speak louder than words" strikes me as more and more true; every year, I find myself valuing words less and less, and actions more and more.

I also consider "meta-words" in the action department. Someone who criticizes their ideological opponents for racism, but gives their ideological allies an unlimited pass for racism, to me this says that racism is at least less important that partisan politics, and quite possibly indicates that they don't really care about racism at all. (I think that using an issues purely cynically is less respectful than completely ignoring it.)