@4bpp's banner p

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

2 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

<3


				

User ID: 355

4bpp

Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs

2 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:50:31 UTC

					

<3


					

User ID: 355

It's just that you listed it along with a set of countries that don't currently have nukes, discussing the hypothetical question whether someone now or in the proximate future would preemptively nuke them to prevent them from crossing the threshold if that were what it took.

At the time when Israel actually crossed the threshold, the world was still a very different place, and they probably were understood to have tacit American backing (potentially including a full "nuclear umbrella") in doing so. As America's ideologically most valued protégé, their situation also seems rather unique; perhaps the closest anywhere gets to it is "lips and teeth" China and North Korea, and notably the latter also managed to cross the threshold ultimately unbothered. I don't think either situation tells us much about what would happen if a more replaceable country (like, say, Saudi Arabia or Cuba) were to try.

(Do you work some US-government-adjacent job that comes with speech obligations, to the extent you would even be allowed to disclose that? That would make a lot of things about my reality model click into place, given the number of times I have been frustrated with you arguing for the "party line" in the past.)

Or, in the middle eastern context, who is supposed to want who to nuke Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia alike.

Is this to suggest that you either don't believe that Israel already has nukes, wish to participate in the curious play where they and their allies pretend that they don't (are there levels of e.g. USG clearance where you are obligated to?), or think that them ending the policy of public denial would be analogous to a breakout event in some sense?

Again, sphere of influence matters. I've seen no indication Venezuela is more socialist than Scandinavia (which is in fact socialist - or at least used to be. But so embarrassingly successful that there has been a fairly successful history rewrite and brainwashing campaign, post 2005 or so, by neoliberal "experts" to convince people it is akshually like super capitalist) but Sweden is not in America's sphere of influence, so it doesn't get as mad and obsessed about regime change.

Having actually lived and worked in Sweden, if it's "socialist", I'm not sure how for example Germany would not count. Sure, there are some elements that are fairly socialist - the medical system is nationalised, similar and similarly dysfunctional to the British (that den of pinkos!) NHS; most blatantly perhaps the housing rental market is subject to price controls and a national queueing system for "first-hand" (direct from owner) rentals with exceptions I didn't understand well. On the other hand, my total income tax at something like 30% of raw income was closer to the US than to Germany with its >40%, and unlike DE and most other European countries unemployment insurance is devolved and strictly optional (you have to proactively choose to join an "A-kassa" and pay monthly dues). Petty entrepreneurship, like setting up an LLC, in Sweden is much easier and cheaper, and even as far as medicine is concerned I am not sure Germany's system with pluralistic but mandatory medical insurance with legally mandated almost-indistinguishable services beyond what brand of Javascript rubble you have to navigate on their websites is actually that much more "free-market" than the NHS-like system.

Why would you think of Venezuela as tougher for the US military than Iraq? It seems to me that there are a lot of factors that make it easier - it's right in America's backyard, its capital city and basically everything major are on the shore (and so there is nothing resembling strategic depth at all), it's less consolidated than Iraq (current government hasn't been in power for that long, and there is a sprawling opposition apparatus the US has long nurtured), and the lower cultural distance means that US soft power is much more effective to encourage defection (for starters, no Venezuelan army member has to fear, rationally or not, that surrendering to the US means that his wife will get defiled in some unspeakable haram ways).

Not that I remember signing up for any cult where Hanania is scripture, but there is a canonical counter-counterpoint where modern US progressivism (and in particular wokeness) is just the result of temperamental (/genetically obligate) conservatives being raised in (and thus becoming conservative of) liberal culture.

So, how do you incentivise people to actually sign up for your newly highly gatekept version of marriage? All those people in situationships are not going, "I wish there were a death pact contract I could enter with a partner that society and law would force us to respect". You can't just decree from above that some action is to be seen as desirable and have people abide; otherwise social engineering would be a lot easier.

That seems reasonable enough at a glance, since it does not have many of the downsides of "typical" promiscuity (the destabilising effect of making it not theoretically possible to match ~everyone up, greater connectivity in the STD transmission graph, unclear paternity...).

Why do you act like this is surprising or somehow contradicting the parent's point? Everyone can simultaneously be low quality and have high standards, and in fact this feels truthy with respect to our society.

There are a lot of Chinese. A tiny fraction of them could be dreaming of leaving (smaller than the "move to Canada"/"move to Russia" faction of Americans?) and there would still be enough that it would feel like a huge phenomenon in the target country.

(Also, how up-to-date is the perception that it is common?)

Where did the poster that you are responding to even suggest that "European culture" is superior to American culture?

There are multiple schools of LLM opposition, with different concerns that lead to different levels of tolerance. One, which the current policy as you understand and implement it does address, is the one about effort asymmetry - "why should I read and parse a post in good faith if it was generated in a click" etc.; another, though, which I am increasingly coming around to, is more about some sort of neurolinguistic programming Lovecraftian corruption aspect, where you can see an LLM flavour to the writing style, the narrative structure, or even the underlying thought process even if the text was composed by a human using "LLM help", or perhaps just by a human who has spent too much time interacting with LLMs at all. For the latter group, "I edited it myself" may be as reassuring as "I am a human, not a pathogen" coming from a terminal plague victim shambling towards you.