Best products from r/DepthHub

Early 20th-century literature is awesome. Sadly there's almost nothing for us in the Romantic era for bassoons or almost any wind instrument. The whole Paganini-inspired virtuoso craze was awesome for pianists and violinists but composers had very little faith in wind instruments to keep up. The closest we have is the last piece Saint-Saëns wrote, this bassoon sonata.

The first unaccompanied piece for music, the Osbourne Rhapsody, is pretty fucking awesome.

If you want something more classical era, the Mozart bassoon concerto is famous, but what is really underplayed and awesome is the Weber Hungarian Fantasy.

If you like extremely modern, John Williams wrote a bassoon concerto, "The Five Sacred Trees".

For my favorite albums, Christopher Millard's "Melange" is awesome as well as his album of concerti. For something even more off the beaten path, Keesecker's "Bassoon Music of the Americas" is also a personal favorite.

If you want to know what I sounded like, I did in my senior recital Orselli's Divertimento on "Il Trovatore".

I think the point you're making is an interesting one. As I read it, you suggest that the fractionalization induced by differing religion was a necessary condition for inter-group conflict. I think I would argue, however, that at the very least, it is not a sufficient condition for inter-group conflict. There are LOTS of places where different groups live side by side in harmony. In fact, this is what we USUALLY see (here's an article that demonstrates that ethnic diversity does not predict conflict well. There's a good bit of literature in this vein).

In a general theoretical sense, this is the argument made by Lake and Rothchild in this paper. But the point is that there are a lot of things that people can be divided over. What's important (the necessary condition) is that leaders are able to mobilize the populace ON those lines. More importantly, however, they argue that conflict is motivated by "collective fears for the future". The relevant question is "how likely do you think that your safety will be protected into the shadow of the future?" So on the Protestant side, they might think about demographic change, and on the Catholic side, they would likely think about exclusion from the political process, or economic inequalities.

But actually, there's another line of scholarship which suggests that all of these grievances with political structure aren't really what's important (this is similar to the first article I linked). Rather, what is important is the means to be successful in the conflict. That is, could a potential group of people gather together money to support some form of armed conflict with a decent chance of winning? Can they convince people to join them (in other words, is the opportunity cost sufficiently low to induce people to join on)? This is why I think the NI case is fascinating, as it isn't happening in the backwoods of Africa, where the lost opportunity is something terrible like subsistence farming.

I'm sure that you can see some of these things in Northern Ireland (and I'm primarily speaking with respect to the Troubles, not anything earlier than that). Under these modes of thought, we start seeing a number of factors which become especially important. First, you see leaders trying to mobilize support around religious lines. Think of people like Ian Paisley. Another important factor to consider is the US element. The large number of Irish immigrants to the US (who have by this point become pretty successful), are able to send money back home in various forms (as discussed above).

Then finally, think about how the actual conflicts ramped up. They started peacefully, as Catholics were demanding civil rights. Rapidly, however, civil rights started to take a backseat to issues of policing, which people didn't really find to be the most salient issue previously. There was a sort of security dilemma at play. Protestants were worried about what all of this popular mobilization meant (and wanted to keep things under control), and Catholics were worried about their LACK of power, and the harsh measures taken to keep the peace. By the time O'Neill started to make inroads on civil rights, the focus of protest had already shifted over to policing, which was harder to address. This whole dynamic is WONDERFULLY covered by O'Dochartaigh (and a selection from CAIN). If you're interested in the Troubles, READ THIS BOOK. It's absolutely tremendous, I can't recommend it highly enough.

I think these security dilemma spirals are a pretty good explanation for the specifics of the descent into the Troubles (for a mildly related take on ethnic rioting in Africa, take a look at this and her forthcoming book on the subject. Her argument is that rioting is a response to personal fears about security. I think the same argument could be made here. This is very similar to the Lake and Rothchild argument)

So now think about what the Belfast Agreement did. It helped to quell some of the security dilemma (and collective fears of the future) by instituting power sharing. This always feels like a kludgy solution to me though. I don't like how it ensures that political lines will remain drawn in the traditional ways. Surely our preferred end-game would be for political parties to be drawn over policies, not identities. But as an interim step it seems to be okay. If your only goal is ending conflict its probably good. But I would imagine it would lead to some mighty strange policy making. The peace process also involved the US taking a large role (helping to address the issue of means, as well as serving as a guarantor of protection to the minority group). It did nothing to actually address religious fractionalization in particular, though. Because while religion was a large part of the conflict, the conflict wasn't really about religion. Religion is just something instrumental that is used by different leaders to consolidate a support structure. Protestant leaders can use Protestantism to consolidate a power base of Protestants which will keep them in control of Stormont. Catholics can use that to mobilize an opposition.

At least that's my take on it. I don't have all the historical background you have, but I think its worthwhile to bring some of the relevant scholarship to bear! Identity is just a tricky thing that we Political Scientists don't like to rely on. Fighting tends to exacerbate the visibility of differences between groups. Its very easy to look back at a people that didn't fight and say "Ah, they were united! Or at least just united enough" and look back at another place that did fight and say "Ah, they weren't united! or at least not quite united enough" That's a very tricky thing to do in the moment, though, so I don't find it to be an altogether useful way of looking at things. Plus, who is to say what "united enough" really means? But hey, my biases are showing.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on some of these various theories, though.

Not only that but, despite this incredibly long and detailed explanation, making your coffee better is really easy. Any one of these changes will make an improvement. Do all of them and you might never bother going out for coffee again.

1. Use whole bean coffee and grind it yourself. A good grinder doesn't have to be expensive.
   
2. Get a good drip maker. Cheap ones don't always hit the right temperature. I've had this one for years, and it gives me a great pot of coffee even from grocery store beans.
   
3. Make sure you're using the correct amount of coffee. A coffee scoop is 2 tablespoons. Use one scoop per cup. If you like your coffee bold (like I do), use one slightly rounded scoop per cup, and if you're making more than 6 cups, toss in one more.
   
4. If your tap water tastes funky, so will the coffee you make with it. Run it through a brita filter or something first.
   
5. This sounds snobby but bear with me - buy your coffee from a local roaster. It's really not much more expensive. Dunkin Donuts wants $9/lb, my local roaster has some varieties for $10-11/lb. It will be fresher and taste better.
   
   For 1 and 2, I'll admit that buying $110 in equipment just for your coffee is a lot, but both the drip maker and the grinder will last you for years and years and will give you better coffee the whole time. If it saves you from buying just one cup of coffee per week, it pays itself off in a year.
   
   The others cost very little, and will make an improvement immediately.

I'm big fan of Shing02, but I've had a Japanese guy talk to me about how wack J-Rap lyrics are. I see his point, but I have to say tracks like the ones you linked as well as these songs from Shing02 and THA BLUE HERB have a respectable kind of beats and flow.

Shing02 - 誉 (Homare)

Shing02 - Pearl Harbor

THA BLUE HERB - NUCLEAR, DAMN

And of course some old school Kohei Japan - Hungry Strut

A good read on Japanese Hip-Hop is a book called Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the Paths of Cultural Globalization by Ian Condry. Condry basically chronicles the importing and customization of Hip-Hop in Japan, and does everything from lyrical analysis to explaining how it's not just a black and white appropriation. He gives an amazing look at that Kohei Japan track I linked as well as a number of other artists/tracks that range from obscure to pop culture. I'll give you a couple of my favorite excerpts from the beginning of the book (It gets pretty deep and nuanced. Definitely a fantastic read if you can get yourself a copy).

>"...Japanese rappers, by allying themselves with African American rap, engage in what might be called a new cultural politics of affiliation...gestures toward alliances across racial boundaries demand analysis in terms of their multiple frames of reference. I would argue that many uses of hip-hop in Japan attempt to produce a kind of political affiliation, but that the politics must be situated in the spaces and contexts in which they are performed. This reorients our attention away from questions of whether the Japanese 'get it' or 'don't get it' when it comes to race and hip-hop..." (pg. 29)



>"Greg Tate (2003) asks rhetorically, What do white people take from black people? His answer: Everything but the burden...the work of scholars and critics who describe hip-hop in terms of the deep and enduring connections between African American struggles and aesthetics is political in the sense that it disrupts the too-easy assumption of many privileged white fans that by listening to hip-hop they are getting close to black people." (pg. 32)



>"...the 'Elvis effect'...black folk make music, and whites remake it and make big bucks....Where is the line between cross-cultural influence and cross-cultural theft? (Dreisinger 2002, 134)."(pg. 33)

_____

>"...Japanese emcees often clothe themselves in images of samurai toughness. The idea that hip-hop artists must prove themselves in public battle encourages artists to pose for photos with katana [samurai swords] to assert that "the mic is my sword" and to describe a ponytail hairstyle as a chonmage (topknot)." (pg.49)


I'd say a disclaimer for these excerpts is that they're taken out of context, so they may seem a bit slanted in opinion. Condry does a good job of methodically going through his points and explaining them well for the most part, these are just particular parts of his writing that resonated with me enough to highlight them/make notes in the margins.

EDITED FOR SPELLING ERROR

Perfect! You'll never look back once you go down this path.

Here's my favourite text of the year. It rambles near the end, but especially going through how we envisioned perspective before modern art it's just a fantastic little guide. You also get some basic background in theoretical physics from it, just as fascinating.

This one is more limited, but puts artistic developments of the early 20th century in perspective by drawing parallels between those and those of science. This and the above are very good if you still see art as painting pretty scenes.

Another by the same author, less involved with the parallels and more with the history.

This is a collection of essays, but they're brilliant. Nature of creativity and the creative process mostly.

These are the ones I know of offhand. Most of my library is a few hours away by car, but I'll be passing through there in a couple of weeks and can pick through titles if you'd like.

A plug for my friend's frozen banana ice cream maker, Yonanas!

I was sceptical before I tasted it but it's much better than from a food processor because the blades spin much faster. It's very smooth like high-quality ice cream. Easy to clean as well. It's super delicious.

That said, I don't own one because I think one-utility things are generally pretty dumb and I don't eat ice cream like products enough to justify the $50 for the machine. YMMV though. If this is the sort of thing you'd be into, I am sure you won't be disappointed.

This post makes great points, and I just want to add that since China stopped importing the world's crappy recycling materials there has been a new article in practically every publication ringing the death knell of recycling, but the industry has weathered similar storms and survived. This may be a bit too optimistic, but the silver lining is that the contaminated junk we were shipping probably wasn't very recyclable anyway and this is an opportunity for education and retooling the system. Committing to Reducing and Reusing is pretty radical and awesome, and I would also add buying products with recycled content in them (toilet paper, plastics ect.) is great too.

If you are interested, check out my friends book all about it: https://www.amazon.com/Reduce-Reuse-Reimagine-Sorting-Recycling/dp/153810539X

I'm getting out of my comfort zone, and I'd absolutely recommend the "Cultural and Political History" book I mentioned above and a fantastic memoir called Confessions of a Mullah Warrior. Both are great and very readable.

The Saudis did and do what they do best, which is supply lots and lots of money and extremist clerics.

Prior to the 1980s, Islam in Central Asia and Afghanistan was quite moderate, incorporating a lot of the cultural heritage of the region and somewhat discounting the exact text of the Qu'ran in favor of Fiqh, the centuries of debate and jurisprudence that were built on top of early Islam.


With the Soviet invasion and subsequent war, millions of Afghans fled to Pakistan. In the massive refugee camps, Saudi Arabia set up hundreds of madrassas staffed by Wahabi clerics and their fundamentalist and violent views.

Beyond Wahabism, these madrassas were breeding grounds for the various mujahideen groups, who would recruit and bring young men and boys back across the border to fight the Soviets. In addition to all of this, Saudi Arabia would provide funding for various mujahideen groups, most notably Hizb-i-Islami, one of the most repressive.

As with anything, there were good madrassas devoted to peace and learning. The problem is that there were a tremendous amount that were madrassas in name only, focusing on war and intolerance instead of religion.


Iran supported a number of mujahideen groups and later the Northern Alliance. Generally speaking, they supported the various Hazara militas (most Hazaras are Shia Muslims, like Iranians) and ethnically Tajik militias (Tajiks are Persian and speak Persian). Iran was another supporter of the northern alliance and a major blunder of the US invasion in 2001 was labeling Iran as part of the “axis of evil” and pushing it out of Afghanistan as much as possible instead of courting it for help against the Taliban and long-term support to counter Pakistani influence.


Of course I didn’t (and the OP didn’t) mention Uzbekistan, which was critical in arming and supporting Dostum’s Uzbek and Turkmen mujahideen group, Junbish-i-Milli. That group, while never the largest, was one of the best armed and trained, playing a crucial role for decades.

>Well, it's not the only reason. Hydrocarbons are long, simple molecules which are relatively easy to work with and extract energy from. Pretty marvelous stuff, really.

Correct. I was a bit rash in making that statement. Hydrocarbons are marvelous, and we will be using them in for the rest of our future. It's used to make many types paper that we use, clothes, plastics, detergents, energy for our cars and our airplanes, energy for industrial processes, to generate heat for our homes, and the list goes on and on.

But we only pollute our environment with them without limit because it is profitable. All environmental damage is only done because it is profitable. Whether it's in the best interest of human welfare is not taken into account.

If you're interested in science, I suggest you look into the planetary boundaries. It is a list of 9 different environmental boundaries that were produced by leading scientists all over the world (alongside leading US climate scientists from NASA, James Hansen). If you're into the environmental movement at all, I suggest taking a look at this book.

Nice post Noamsky!

For anyone interested in explaining capitalism to their kids - Economix - is a great book. http://economixcomix.com. Here's the link on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810988399/.

This is a great point "the ONLY way anything gets done under capitalism is if a wealthy person stands to make a good amount of money" - however it's exactly what government should be providing - things like schools, hospitals etc.

This is a pretty decent, simple treatment of the idea of comparative advantage, that countries are best off making the things they are most efficient at and trading for things they're less efficient at.

If you are looking for more clear explanations of basic economic theory for the layman, I recommend Naked Economics.

If you're interested in learning topology, Topology Now! is an excellent introduction for the recreational mathematician.

Most topology text books start with set theory and open and closed sets.

Topology Now instead presents the concepts backwards, starting with all of the fun stuff, like knots, and not moving on to the set theory stuff until you have developed a good appreciation of why, for instance, open and closed sets are relevant.

I read his godmother's autobiography a few years ago- it isn't quite as exciting as Tupac's story but it's pretty good. It also gives you a great insight into what it was like to grow up black in the US back in the 50s and 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur

http://www.amazon.com/Assata-An-Autobiography-Shakur/dp/1556520743

No rules broken, as far as I know, but Sex at Dawn is a rather dubious work of popular science. I wouldn't recommend it, and I'm guessing the people downvoting you agree.

By the way, you don't need RES to make links:

Sex at Dawn

Becomes:

Sex at Dawn