I think most people agree that rugby teams are too heavy. Players are under too much pressure to bulk up, beyond what is healthy. Bigger pack weight does give a big advantage in a match, but it does not make rugby a better game.

There should be a maximum team weight. Maybe 1500kg for 15 players. Teams can still use very heavy players, but they must keep the total team weight under a limit. So being very heavy is a slight disadvantage for a player. The existing incentive will be reversed, to keep below a limit, to a healthier weight.

Very heavy players will still be selected, only if they are skillful enough to be worth keeping, despite the difficulty they create in keeping the team under the limit.

This does reduce the advantage very heavy peoples like the Europeans have over lighter peoples like the Asians. So it might be unpopular among supporters. I think it would instead make things more interesting. It would mean more teams can seriously compete in international events.

After reading what Varadkar said about genocide yesterday (“Varadkar rules out joining South African genocide case”), there are many things you could say. I’m going to gloss over whether a man who contradicts himself in mid argument is fit to be in government, and focus on a bigger issue.

Genocide is where somebody selectively kills part of a population because of their race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.

It is not necessary to kill every member of of the target group, to commit a genocide.

Genocide is a two part process. The target population is first isolated in a certain place, then massacred. If non-target people are first given the opportunity to leave, before the massacre starts, then that is further evidence of genocide.

Common definitions of genocide (and there are several) focus on intent. Intent is difficult to prove. Definitions of crimes only make sense when they focus on the actual act, not on speculation about actor’s intent.

A bombing is not a genocide, nor is a massacre. Isolating a certain population inside a walled off region, and then bombing it, is a genocide. Isolating a people in a certain region, then withdrawing the supply of water, or blocking the importation of medicine, is also genocide. Driving into a town and shooting everyone, is not genocide.

I find most news sources and people think of all wars the same way. But that means they only understand the wars superficially. The two recent talked about ones, Palestine and Ukraine, are good examples.

Russia and Ukraine are very poor countries, with memory of extreme poverty and famine. They are obsessed with food security. The recent changes in Ukraine, the coup d'état, the broken peace treaty, etc, don't directly harm Russia, but they are perceived as worsening Russians' food security. This is a the thing that most frightens Russians. They must do everything they can to protect themselves against risk of famine. That is why there is a war.

When Russians say things like "we are acting against an aggression against us. This invasion is purely self-defense."

If you want to stop the war, you must address those concerns.

Israelis are obsessed with the old testament. It says that they are exceptional. Jews are God's one true people. They are precious and other people are disposable. It defines a chunk of the middle east that belongs to the Jews, and says it is their destiny to recapture it and expel or kill its inhabitants. It gives examples where a small crime can justify going to war. It justifies genocide by Jews against other tribes.

That is why there is continuous expansion of Israel into Muslin lands, including massacres and expulsions of Muslims by Israel. But any similar crime against an Israeli is leads to disproportionate and collective punishment against his whole people. That's why Israelis don't have a problem with this activity.

When Israeli statesmen say things like "they are just animals" or "what do you mean innocent Palestinian" this is what they mean.

If you want to stop the war in Palestine, you have to address that underlying rationale.

Quote of the day

We live in a world where we are constantly being reminded that we must pay attention, though the things we are being asked to pay attention to–political corruption, the erosion of human rights, climate change, systemic racism–are all, ironically, things that cannot be combatted solely by knowing a lot about them. The result of paying attention is either stunning yourself into paralyzing anxiety or sinking deep into depression or rage, or both.

Birds have feathers. And birds fly. But the feathers are not to aid flight. And I'll prove it.

Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. And birds evolved from dinosaurs (theropods). After all that evolution, much is still similar. Birds still have beaks and make nests and lay eggs in them. But birds and theropods have a new body shape (their legs that go straight down from their bodies), feathers, skin, and they lay hard eggs.

Compare photos of a chicken and a veliciraptor. Then compare their skeletons. There is not much difference at all. It is like comparing prehistoric and modern crocodiles.

The flying animals in dinosaur times did not even have feathers, but the flightless therapods did. And most modern flying animals do not have feathers.

Some birds have evolved feathers with special aerodynamic properties. But then bats have evolved skin, and insects have evolved wing-tissue with the similar properties.

Birds also evolved special bone structure to aid flight. Saying feathers are for flight is like saying bones are for flight.

Theropods evolved feathers, but they did that millions of years before they started flying. Many of them never evolved to fly at all, including many extinct dinosaurs and many living birds. The ability to fly is distinct from the bearing of feathers. There is no connection at all.