4 ms·

I believe this is true, but Wikipedia reports that half the force that bombed Dresden was USAAF. I'm sure their commanders didn't shirk the responsibility. Any

I believe this is true, but Wikipedia reports that half the force that bombed Dresden was USAAF. I'm sure their commanders didn't shirk the responsibility. Anyway, if you don't find the USA's involvement in Dresden horrifying enough, we can always bring up, say, the Tokyo firebombing – a 100% all-American operation that killed 100,000 on March 10, 1945 alone. World War II was horrible on a scale that defies description today. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every theatre of war.

dfc 13y ago
I think you meant less than half? War is horrible. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every war. But I do not think that an abundance of horror means that we should do away with the desire for accuracy.
- mechanical_fish 13y ago
  No, I meant "half", which in this context means "around 50%, close enough that if you saw all the planes lined up in random order on a runway you'd guess 'half', and the judge would say 'pretty close'." The word "half" is, in this context, purposefully imprecise. To cite it as "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" is to deploy needless detail to distract the reader from the main point. ("Do we have reason to believe that the USAAF signed off on, and materially contributed to, the bombing of Dresden? Why, yes.") It's easy to get lost in irrelevant detail, or to deploy irrelevant detail to make other people get lost. It's one of the reasons they ask young physicists to practice those brainteaser problems ("approximately how many cheese salespeople are there in Utica, New York?"): They need to learn not to fret so much about the shape of the leaves that they're afraid to sketch the forest.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Since when are encyclopedic references expected to be imprecise? As a reader when I come across a reference to wikipedia I interpret the citation as a literary expression of accuracy and expect the cited value to be extremely close to what I would find in the wikipedia article. Without the wikipedia citation I understand that there is some wiggle room. Similarly, if someone says "the board is five feet and one half inch long" I expect that they are within a half inch if not closer. But if they merely say "the board is five feet long" I am not shocked to find a board that is 4'11" or 5'1". You wanted it to be imprecise because it made your argument sound better. Lets be honest you really did your best to come up with such a verbose example: "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" versus "Wikipedia reports that a little less than half the force that bombed Dresden" or "Wikipedia reports that almost half the force that bombed Dresden" The latter example required the addition of six letters or one word.

dfc 13y ago

I think you meant less than half? War is horrible. There is plenty of horror to go around, from every war. But I do not think that an abundance of horror means that we should do away with the desire for accuracy.

mechanical_fish 13y ago
No, I meant "half", which in this context means "around 50%, close enough that if you saw all the planes lined up in random order on a runway you'd guess 'half', and the judge would say 'pretty close'." The word "half" is, in this context, purposefully imprecise. To cite it as "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" is to deploy needless detail to distract the reader from the main point. ("Do we have reason to believe that the USAAF signed off on, and materially contributed to, the bombing of Dresden? Why, yes.") It's easy to get lost in irrelevant detail, or to deploy irrelevant detail to make other people get lost. It's one of the reasons they ask young physicists to practice those brainteaser problems ("approximately how many cheese salespeople are there in Utica, New York?"): They need to learn not to fret so much about the shape of the leaves that they're afraid to sketch the forest.
- dfc 13y ago
  Since when are encyclopedic references expected to be imprecise? As a reader when I come across a reference to wikipedia I interpret the citation as a literary expression of accuracy and expect the cited value to be extremely close to what I would find in the wikipedia article. Without the wikipedia citation I understand that there is some wiggle room. Similarly, if someone says "the board is five feet and one half inch long" I expect that they are within a half inch if not closer. But if they merely say "the board is five feet long" I am not shocked to find a board that is 4'11" or 5'1". You wanted it to be imprecise because it made your argument sound better. Lets be honest you really did your best to come up with such a verbose example: "42%, based on the fraction of bombers deployed, as reported on an unlocked Wikipedia page five minutes ago" versus "Wikipedia reports that a little less than half the force that bombed Dresden" or "Wikipedia reports that almost half the force that bombed Dresden" The latter example required the addition of six letters or one word.