Lord Ratner

No worries, internetting is fraught with communication errors. Let's try anyways. "War with Russia" is a bit vague. We can have an entire war with Russia within the borders of Ukraine. That's very different than marching on Moscow, with very different responses from Russia. We try to occupy Russia, yeah, nukes go from "probably not" to "possibly." Definitely not circling the drain, or declining to ruin. We've been through 3 turnings already. We emerge stronger each time. I think you misunderstand the theory. I agree with this, however I believe that complete economic isolation will absolutely provoke a Russian response we can't ignore, and thus, escalate. The oil embargo on Japan is a good corollary. We agree on a lot, so I probably had you confused with some other argument on this board. I don't think it's time for American troops to kill Russians. But I absolutely do support Americans killing Russians in Ukraine if it looks like Russia is moving to occupy the entire country. A march on Kiev would be the red line.

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well. What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them. I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion. Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please. We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success. Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End. Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox: If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs. Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Another area we disagree. The longer we wait, the weaker we will be for the actual fight. As our weak governance racks up increasingly absurd debt, the pressure to divert military spending to welfare programs will only grow. The longer we wait, the fewer war fighting experts we will have coupled with less and less modern military equipment to fight with. I still think we win based on geography and natural resources, but it'll cost more lives and treasure to wait. Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus. Will we be better capable of fighting Russia today, or after another 10-20 years of peaceful decline? I'll be honest. I don't care about you. Or me. I want what is best for my kids. I am not interested in adding WWIII to the list of hardships we are pushing off to the future. Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

So, I'm glad you are at least honest about this. Thank you. The reason I am against allowing Ukraine to be taken, under your logic, is because I believe that *if* they truly want to take Ukraine, they will not stop at non-NATO countries. Wouldn't make much sense strategically. We're better off just starting the damn war now if that's the case. Unless of course the plan is to let them weaken their military by taking Ukraine and Moldova, at which point we immediately go in an crush them. But I'm positive that's not the plan. And to be clear, my primary reason for supporting Ukraine hasn't changed. Sovereignty matters, and a stable world order is not possible if it is not enforced. And here we are. I agree, the right answer is money and equipment, which we are somehow screwing up. And if we are willing to fund the perpetual Ukrainian insurgency, maybe it stays that way after Kiev falls. But it seems like Republicans have forgotten why the world needs police, and why it's better to be the ones in charge.

The current "AI" iterations are not AGI, however they are closer to functioning like a human brain than we have ever gotten before. The irony here is that we didn't accomplish this by figuring out how the brain works, quite the opposite, we created an array of associations that is as mysterious to us as the individual neural pathways of a human brain is. We know that the brain has a combination of biologically-arranged pathways (e.g. for walking, breathing, visual identification of faces, eye position, etc.) and experience-formed pathways (math, music, flying a plane). Right now the AI models crunch tons of mostly-unfiltered data into a model that we do not have the ability to directly adjust because of the sheer volume of parameters, then an overlay is used to do things like prevent swearing, giving directions for bomb making, etc. But this is in it's infancy. Once you can pre-program certain behaviors into the actual model, then leave the rest of the model to continuously adapt the weights based on new data, we will take another big step to AGI. But since we have precisely 0% knowledge on what is or what causes consciousness, it is entirely possible that we reach a point where AGI is achieved simply by running the models with enough horsepower that we stumble into the solution. That is, incidentally, remarkably similar to how evolution works. Are humans the only animals that are conscious? What about dolphins, octopi, crows, or chimps? If not, does that mean there is no intelligence other than human intelligence? That seems like an arbitrary definition. Where is the line, and how smart does a computer need to be before it is considered intelligent? Smarter than all humans, or just smarter than any human? Do people born with Down Syndrome have consciousness? What if an AI surpasses the intellectual ability of someone with DS? Calling even the current models an "abacus" is like calling the human brain a glutamate sensor. Sure, it's kind of true, but it's the scale of the apparatus that makes it interesting.

You want at least 2 drives for redundancy. Tons of 2-bay options. No need for separate systems. Backup and storage are mostly-idle processes, so adding security recording won't tax the system. If you start running multiple services that simultaneously access the hard drives, that's where you start getting into more advanced requirements.

I will start by saying that I hate that news outlets are using the term "Russian friendly Republicans." I do not believe the Republicans against this funding are necessarily Russian friendly. I do however believe they are idiots. Not a single one of them seems willing to answer a simple question. What do we do if Russia marches on Kiev? The argument before was that Russia was just taking historically Russian territory in East Ukraine with a majority Russian population. But now that Russia is advancing, and making some moves towards Kiev, he's the new position that Russia should be allowed to annex the entire country? We have a group of phenomenally stupid legislators on both sides, and it now appears increasingly likely that we are in fact going to go to war. Would have been cheaper to just send them the money.

Incredible! Before, I don't think this is going to make the world a better place or be particularly lucrative, but the world of parody music just got a shot of adrenaline straight to the heart. And of course every graduation video from here on out is going to have a customized audio track. "Good Riddance" by Green Day may have just lost it's biggest market.

Yup. There's some interesting discussion about using the "holes" in the weights to use AI to discover new things. Basically, the AI uses data to find the most common connections and build answers based on those weights. Reverse it and you can find "answers" that are the opposite... the least common connections. Problem is, how do you filter good things from an infinite supply of "wrong" answers? Anyways, using Udio I finished a full-length song that I think is better than most country music produced today. Enjoy! Crumbs and Chrome Hearts https://www.udio.com/songs/5g1enYTaTmMCYMbrAxzDVi

It's getting a bit difficult to keep up with The many new manifestations of artificial intelligence, but if you do there's a new one out for open testing that is fairly astonishing, if or nothing else than for the simplicity of producing something functional. The service is called Udio, and right now you can make a whole bunch of 30-second clips just to play around with the technology. Here is a song clip I created with my standard AI testing subject: a dinosaur that falls in love with a toaster. https://www.udio.com/songs/hveSQTSVkKQ5NnfCUx5Q2s However as I was playing around with this thing, and based on the market action over the past couple years, I'm coming to the conclusion that AI is going to have big and profound social effects on the world (fake news will have a whole new meaning), but I don't think it's going to be the economic game changer everybody is making it out to be, and I think the Nvidia stock is going to be the poster child of this frenzied bubble. That's not to say I think Nvidia is going anywhere, I just think they're going to be the next Cisco of the early dot com bust. This technology is amazing, but even before we get into the inevitable landscape of government regulation, it just doesn't seem to me that it will be capable of creating something new, which is ultimately what produces generational leaps forward in wealth. What we have right now is a hyper sophisticated search engine that can output the results in a wide range of multimodal formats. Anyways, if you have some time put together some songs and share them here, and if people are interested this thread can be a repository for the many different types of AI products that are at least amusing, if not particularly useful.

I have never heard that Air Force Sims have equivalency, unless those Sims are not actually part of the Air Force. But I also think we are getting off on different paths here. Logging your sim time as sim time is one thing. That's literally what it is. Counting it towards your hours for the purposes of qualifications is an entirely different issue. I have never heard anyone say that Air Force simulators count towards flight hour qualifications, for example, an ATP. Also at American Airlines they did absolutely nothing with my hours. Are you military? Are you breathing? You're hired. I made a single cover sheet with a summary of hours, and handed that over with my Air Force records. I let them do the rest.

You ever seen Joe Biden reading a teleprompter? Can't concentrate more than that...

Stolen

No way. We'll just end up with a bunch of complaints about the Israeli failure to do more for the Iranian civilians.

Yep. Don't include it in any of your calculations. On the flip side, the airlines are well aware of what resources military pilots have, and they will adjust their requirements based on what they see your history is. Like I said, just get as many real flying hours as you can between now and getting out. As long as the economy holds out, you won't have a hard time getting an offer.

Hey man, if I gotta ignore what you said on the same page in the thread, one day ago, in the same conversation, because that's too long ago for you to remember saying, then yeah, we're not gonna get anywhere. This isn't War and Peace, it's literally five posts each. 🤷🏻‍♂️

This is where we actually started. Nothing about starvation. You then jumped to this strawman: Also: Emphasis mine. Exactly how is this not implying that Israel *is* purposely starving the Palestinians. This was a comparison between something the US dealt with and what Israel is dealing with, yes? I don't have to twist your words, dude. I'm just quoting what you literally wrote yesterday.

What the fuck are you talking about? 🤣😂 I'm sure I haven't called you a Muslim extremist. There is only one group involved in this conflict that outright desires the death and starvation of babies. That is Hamas. Not Israel, not the US, not you, not me. Only the Islamic fundamentalists are deranged enough to believe that the death of their own children is a good thing. You just keep repeating a bunch of points that imply that Israel is somehow intentionally starving people. They have done more in this war to protect the civilians of their enemy population than any organization, the United States included, has ever done in the history of humanity. There is not a single example that comes close. Considering your background, I surprised at your minimization of the unfathomable difficulty of distributing aid to a population who hates you, under the governance of a terrorist regime that is not only actively engaged in military combat against you, but has and continues to steal the aid in an effort to intentionally exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe in the hopes, sadly successful it seems, of convincing westerners that somehow Israel is in the wrong here. The Washington Post article does a remarkable job showing why the aid is so difficult to distribute, though it conveniently starts with Palestinian allegations, easily ignored, glosses over Egypt's regular to accept refugees, then covers the many different Palestinian factions that steal, riot, or refuse to distribute the aid. There are two countries with larger gdps than Israel, and nearly every country with more space and people, yet somehow these Muslim countries aren't responsible for the Muslim humanitarian crisis. It's Israel, the attacked, who are responsible. It would be nice if Israel wasn't fighting an enemy that used years and years of humanitarian aid repurposed as weaponry and used to construct defensive tunnels. Even the notion that Israel 's historical stance towards the Palestinians somehow created this mess is laughable. What were they going to do? Integrate the Palestinians into one country, immediately creating a majority voting block that openly calls for the immediate genocide of all Jews? Recognize Hamas in a two-state solution and solidify a militaristic terrorist government next door, with even more undeserved rights given to them by the UN? Do more is meaningless. Do better is meaningless. Saying this is somehow different, or a different time, without explaining exactly how, is meaningless. More Israeli participation in Gaza means more dead Israelis. Doing more or doing better means more dead Israelis. We incinerated tens of thousands of civilians to protect American lives. And we would do it again in a heartbeat if any country strapped GoPros to their chest and fucked the bleeding corpses of our wives and daughters. I'm not accusing you of supporting Hamas, or even the Palestinians. But this strange Western tendency to reflexively build moral equivalence between two diametrically opposed populations is being exploited by the real bad guys to continue on to the next rape or murder. And as unfortunate as decades or centuries of human history can be, the Israelis alive today should not have to sacrifice themselves because of what a bunch of dead people did decades ago. There are poor and hungry populations all over the world, but only certain ones are participants in a religious death cult that glorifies the shedding of blood, be it their own or their enemies, in the pursuit of eternal Paradise. Treating those civilians the same as civilians who believe in fundamental human rights and dignities is an immoral stance.

That's the nicest thing you could have said to them 🤣

Oh, yeah. Latest one.

Wait what? We had interest rates lower than they've ever been in history, and the Treasury doubled down on short term instruments. If they had issued Bonds at <2% and Notes at <0.5%, our government debt would be a time bomb with a 20 year fuse instead of a 2 year fuse. How is that "excellent?" She also sat on low interest rates at the Fed, building this mess up when the economy was doing great. And she didn't see inflation till it hit her in the face over and over and over. Exactly what does she have to do in your mind to be less-than-excellent?

Your metric is way off. You don't think the airplane was vastly new? The telephone? Radio? Radar? You think Global Warming is different than global cooling, peak oil, the ozone hole, overpopulation, etc? Every decade since the start of the industrial revolution, other than immediately following a war, was the most people lifted from poverty at the time. These are exactly the things people have said each time. If you read the Fourth Turning then you know these same forces were in play each time, including government capture, elite hubris, wealth inequality, and absurd ideologies. Just look at the small but measurable resurgence in union organizing. What is old is new again. I admit that the US can fall, but our location, resources, and population make that unlikely. We are simply in a better position based on many things we can't fuck up, no matter how hard we try. And we are trying 😂🤣

You remember where 1200+ Israelis were literally raped, tortured and murdered? Sorry but the hunger of the supportive population does not trump the security of the attacked population. Anything else would be an abdication of responsibility to the Israeli people. And a friendly fire accident is another regular feature of war. Sucks. We sure had our fair share. Unless you are arguing that the WCK convoy was intentional, then just saying "do better" is horseshit. Hamas could do better too. Everyone could do better. Lets make this useful and say how many dead Israeli soldiers are a fair exchange for how many dead Palestinian "civilians." Until then it's just sideline commentary. The Palestinians have a government, that's who should be worried about their hunger and safety. Instead it is up to Israel to move hundreds of thousands of people who cheered the rape and torture of their wives and daughters so the terrorist psychopaths they are protecting can be hunted and killed. But sure. Do better. Funny how the standard is always "do better" up to and past the point that the objective can no longer be accomplished. And how many of those were sheltered over or around the many varieties of Islamic militants? Subtract those. How many were storming the border fences or checkpoints? Subtract those. How many were civilians killed as the primary target, not collateral damage in response to direct attacks on Israel? That's the more relevant number. Once again, do you believe we were wrong for Hiroshima? Dresden? Because we did blockade Japanese oil, and most of Europe made Germany into a pariah state after WWI. Holistically is a cop-out. There is a line between geopolitical competition and outright acts of war. Hamas, not Israel, started this war, to the cheering of their poor, hungry population. It is Israel's responsibility to it's people to end the threat. When Israel starts raping Palestinians, bombing apartments, or dumping humanitarian aid into the sea to "make a point," then we will have the beginning of a basic equivalence. They are humans with free will. Yes, pawns. Yes exploited. So too was every population in history that eventually found their way to peace and freedom. And they elected Hamas in 2006. Hamas has since taken total control, but since when did Americans decide that populations are no longer responsible for their destiny? Once again, how many Israelis should die to save the lives of people who want Jewish blood in the streets more than they want their children to eat or survive? Americans and Westerners have a really tough time understanding religious fanaticism. When death is a reward for killing your enemies, you can't freedom and compassion your way to changing hearts and minds. How we haven't learned this after the last 20 years is mystifying.

The Average YOY Inflation Rate under Trump was: 1.9% The Average YOY Inflation Rate under Biden is: 5.7% Ok I see what you're saying, I missed the "took office" part. However the inflation that took place in 2021 was not from Joe Biden. It was from Trump and the pandemic supply shocks. The inflation we have today, and that we will have for the next decade in all likelihood, is from Biden. And Bush, and definitely Obama. Lot's of chickens coming home to roost. And when Trump wins, and the economy slows down, the trillions in Fed stimulus that Trump will call for will make inflation even worse. Not that it matters. Every economic statistic is a disaster under Biden, yet that are plenty of stats to twist to make it seem like he's doing great. Remember when he was bragging about reducing unemployment... after a pandemic?

I'll go in pieces: Israel is not starving anyone. Hamas is. It's not Israel stopping the aid, it's the complete absence of anyone to receive and distribute it. Because Hamas wants more dead Palestinians. They have stolen aid for years, and continue to do so. Those deaths are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with Israel. Because as you are pointing out, what matters is how you wage the war. What does not matter is how many innocent civilians die as a result. You wage the war ethically, and that's all you can do. Especially in this situation where civilian deaths are specifically being used as a countermeasure to Israeli attempts to destroy Hamas, arguing that the arbitrary number of deaths is somehow relevant is literally playing into their strategy. You seem to have bought the Hamas narrative that Israel is starving the Palestinians. Nonsense. Sure, but that's global policy anywhere and anytime. It's not like the Allies didn't have culpability for isolating Germany and turning it into a pariah state. That ended up with World war II, but we still killed a fuck ton of Nazis. The dirt on their hands arguments is always used to draw a moral equivalence between the two belligerents in a war. But there is no moral equivalence here. Israel has never done what Hamas did, and by any rational account would never do what Hamas did. Hamas not only did it, but the vast majority of their population celebrated it. Anyone who has even the slightest difficulty understanding who the good guys and who the bad guys are in this war, and I'm not saying that's you, has no place in the discussion. Ultimately you have to base your judgment of a society on what they do, and what they proclaim. Based on this, I choose 100,000 dead Palestinians today over 100,000 dead Jews over time. I would rather neither, but not all civilians are equal, because not all countries are equal, and not all cultures are equal. Hamas was chosen by and supported by the Palestinians. At a certain point the population has to be responsible for the type of country they create. Again, that doesn't mean you have a green light to intentionally Target civilians. But that's not what's happening, and that's not what I questioned from your first post. The number of dead civilians does not serve as the measure for whether a war is fought ethically. There would be a whole hell of a lot fewer deaths if Hamas didn't purposefully put their military targets under and around civilians. And our long-standing rules of engagement allow for killing those civilians. Doesn't make it fun, but it doesn't make it unethical either.