RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
No bio...
User ID: 317
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Increasing operational tempo would exacerbate crew fatigue without addressing the underlying personnel shortages.
Crew? These aren't crew.
Who do you think mans a P-8 or a frigate spying for Chinese ships? Crew!
operational tempo
Wrong use of the wrong term
No, that's perfectly correct. You're not aware of the proper terminology here. If you spend more time at sea or in the air, operational tempo increases. This is basic stuff.
Is it substantial in terms of manpower? Maybe only a tripwire force will be deployed 24/7
It's not a tripwire force it's talking about here. Again, you do not understand what it's talking about. This is surveillance, not tripwire.
They are ageing but there are plenty sitting around
Production of the B1 finished DECADES ago. They're supposed to be replaced in 2025 by the B-21. Why would we want to be flying an obsolete, incredibly expensive to maintain aircraft with a logistics chain that barely even exists in America? No more can be made, so if we crash one, it's gone forever!
This is used as a gotcha for the b-1 but it applies equally to all new planes.
Heavy bombers are different to fighters or heavy airlift for that matter. Australia already fields fighters but not heavy bombers. These are super complicated and hard to train, it's a highest of the high-end capability that can't just be rushed in a few years. And he wants to base them in Papua New Guinea, a shithole country with no infrastructure.
Bullshit
That's just flatly true, Australian shipbuilding is a joke. Read up on the Hunter class if you like, Claude knows more about it than you.
Why does Australia need amphibious assault ships?
There are islands in the Pacific ocean and it can be helpful if you can land things there - troops, equipment, missiles, supplies. They're not really amphibious assault ships in that any opposition will sink them quickly, they're glorified and overpriced transports. Expecting these things to function like light carriers is very silly. Australia has minimal experience with carrier operations and no carrier-borne aircraft. It's another one of Pezzulo's 'lets just develop yet another high end capability how hard can it be' moments.
Claude proceeds to never mention the Philippines again.
Fair enough, though it's not like the original article explains how we're supposed to get in bed with the Philippines either. 'Just make an alliance' doesn't cut it either.
The human author mentioned space a single time, as a single component in a fused surveillance system across all domains. So this sentence is just retarded.
Claude criticizes it for not talking about space enough. Space is very important as a killchain enabler and for surveillance. That was the whole point which you seem to have missed. See here:
The most glaring omission is the limited attention to cyber capabilities, space assets, and information operations. Modern military effectiveness depends increasingly on these domains, yet they receive passing mention at best.
Claude is not perfect. Sometimes it just produces blather. But it's still considerably better than your own criticisms of it. I rest my case!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
At some things not others. Writing is not one of those things.
Go take a look at the Daily Mail and come back to me on that.
Getting the bad side doesn't mean you throw up your arms and just say that your essay is gonna be bad.
Obviously an essay arguing for the wrong side of the argument will be worse than an essay arguing for the right side of the argument, ceteris paribus.
And the rote boilerplate in them is more valuable than your claude drivel because it's not pretentious
Nope. That's just, like, your opinion, man. And it's a pretty bad one if you think that characterizing government boilerplate as non-pretentious is the way to go.
This thing happens so often that I can't provide a single example of it happening.
I'm not going to trawl through newspapers earmarked for recycling, looking for typos. I am not a copyeditor for News Corporation. Rest assured that it happens a lot.
Here's one, they managed to mix up entire pages: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-25/daily-telegraph-accidentally-publishes-smh-pages-in-its-paper/11046252
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
-
Pezzulo has written dozens of long-form analytical articles for major newspapers. He is BETTER than a regular journalist, he actually achieved an office of mild significance. He does not write about lost dogs in regional papers or the fake tits of celebrity no. 10023 like most of them.
-
The quality of factual proposals is inseparable from their prudence.
-
Claude's response surpasses Pezzulo because it's a more realistic strategic plan and because it doesn't make any major blunders.
-
You clearly have not read many government reports if you think that's drivel. I assure you that people are being well paid to produce this kind of stuff without the ameliorating factors of any good points whatsoever.
literally not a single concrete example
I can't give you a concrete example, only my friend's anecdotal experiences working with journalists and my anecdotal experiences spotting missing words in newspapers. They really aren't that clever and have been getting worse.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
These are good points and make sense but I keep getting the sense that there are people trying to force down this framing on us, that the EU really needs Atlantic unity. Like you say, the EU is mad about the US heading off for Asia.
Jannik Hartmann, a fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, confirmed that a U.S. pullback — from Germany's Ramstein Air Base, for instance — would leave Europe without basic loading gear like ramps and flatbed wagons. Europe also has few forward stockpiles of military hardware, whereas the U.S. has pre-positioned supplies across Germany, Poland and the Netherlands, Kruijver said.
Really, the EU can't rustle up some flatbed trucks and ramps? How hard is it to get some trucks (insert joke about Wehrmacht mechanization here)? Or trains suitable for tanks and heavy vehicles, shouldn't they have them? They can't expect the US to bring trains with them over the Atlantic surely. I don't know for sure but I suspect the German Council on Foreign Relations may be manipulating the facts somewhat. US pre-positioned supplies would obviously be useful but how much is really needed? Satellites and enablers are another matter but the EU does have their own satellite constellation in Galileo.
How do 160 million beat 3-4x their number in an offensive war? I just don't see them prevailing even with their shell advantages, battle-hardened troops, SAM batteries, ECM... Even if they have a qualitative advantage in all domains Europe is just bigger in population and industry. Size predominates in industrial, attritional warfare. Superweapons like HIMARS, PATRIOTs, Challengers, T-14s, T-90Ms or Su-57s aren't what's swaying this war, it's quantity of men, quantity of shells and quantity of drones.
And even then, Russian advantages in shells, missiles and manpower haven't yet cracked Ukraine, they're slowly burning through the population in attritional fighting. Against Europe it would be much slower either way.
A united Europe can defend itself or at least induce enough doubt that Russia wouldn't attack. Against a divided Europe (presumably the whole world's gone to hell in this scenario), nuclear blackmail could achieve effortless Russian victory. Just wipe Warsaw off the map after the initial demonstration if they still haven't surrendered unconditionally.
These are real, right?
Ukraine's rare earths exist but they're not valuable in any significant sense.
Exploration efforts were abandoned after a 13-year assessment process, and no attempts have been made to develop the Novopoltavske deposit since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, according to experts.
"To my knowledge, there are no economically viable rare earth deposits in Ukraine," said Tony Mariano, an independent geologist consultant with expertise in rare earths exploration. "I have evaluated clay deposits in Ukraine thought to have potential for rare earths but found them not to be viable. This doesn't mean there aren't any, only that further exploration and evaluation needs to be done."
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Show me one.
Here are some: https://www.rd.com/article/hilarious-newspaper-typos/
And here are a bunch of people seeing them, it's not just me: https://www.quora.com/Am-I-mistaken-or-are-there-more-typos-in-reputable-news-articles-each-year
I see them all the time in Australian national papers but none today.
They are pretending to be stupid in order to push their talking points, not yours.
Not everything is politics or worth lying about. Sometimes it's just a complex matter of fact and they're unable to grasp it. Or they don't understand a word like 'bifurcate', don't know what it means.
If you think so, then show me an LLM writing better than a generic whatever-tier human news article.
Now I'm going to copy out elements of an article in The Australian from not merely a journalist but a former Departmental Secretary, a high ranking government official. This guy should be very good! Here is the extract:
Enhance surveillance
First, we must enhance the continuous wide-area surveillance of our area of direct military interest. We must be able to pinpoint the precise locations and track the movement of Chinese (and Russian) ships, submarines and aircraft of interest as far from Australia as possible. This will require the more intensive use and meshing together of the sensor feeds from national intelligence systems, space-based sensors, the Jindalee radar network, P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones, E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, undersea sensors and other assets.
A fused situational picture of key Chinese and Russian movements in our area of direct military interest should be developed and shared in real time with US Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii in exchange for its fused picture of the same. This will require more resources to support 24/7 operations in the Australian Defence Force and the relevant intelligence agencies. Wide-area surveillance of our area of direct military interest cannot be a “business hours” activity.
Operational readiness
Second, we must enhance ADF operational readiness, which means having more forces standing ready to undertake quick alert missions, such as air interceptions and maritime surveillance flights.
This will cost money and drain crews as they will fatigue more rapidly when kept at higher states of readiness. More assertive rules of engagement should be authorised by the Defence Minister to allow for the close shadowing of Chinese and Russian units in our area of direct military interest. This would be done in a safe and professional manner, as it is being done nearly every other day by our allies and partners who are being probed regularly at sea and in the air.
The ADF’s Joint Operations Command should be reconfigured along the lines of the original vision of defence force chief General John Baker, who in 1996 established the Australian Theatre Command, or COMAUST. Baker’s logic was that the ADF should be postured, and commanded, principally to conduct operations in Australia’s area of direct military interest. While operations farther afield would be undertaken from time to time, they should not be the main focus of the ADF. After 9/11, the ADF adopted a globalist orientation. Mastery of the area of direct military interest started to fall away.
It is time for the ADF to focus zealously once again on the defence of Australia’s area of direct military interest, and our national military command arrangements and systems should reflect this.
Longer-range anti-surface warfare capabilities
Third, we must urgently acquire longer-range anti-surface warfare capabilities. A radical suggestion would be to acquire rapidly six to 10 US Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers, which have been configured in recent years for anti-ship strike missions. These bombers are now able to carry 36 Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (24 internally in bomb bays and 12 externally), which is a fearsome anti-surface capability. While the RAAF already is acquiring the LRASM weapon for use by its F/A-18F Super Hornets, having a platform in the order of battle with the range and payload capacity of the B-1B Lancer would severely impair PLA options for mounting surface action missions against Australia.
Longer-range air superiority capability
Fourth, we must urgently acquire a longer-range air superiority capability to deal with the threat of stand-off attacks by PLA Air Force H-6 bombers operating north of Indonesia. Again, a radical suggestion would be to acquire rapidly the air-to-air version of the SM-6 missile, to equip the RAAF’s F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters. Facing such fighters, especially if they were operating forward of the barrier, would make PLA planners think twice about mounting long-range bomber missions against Australia.
Remediate naval warfare capability
Fifth, we urgently need to remediate our naval warfare capability, to ensure that our battle fleet of six Collins-class submarines and 10 major surface combatants (the Hobart and Anzac classes) are fully crewed and ready for action.
This will require crewing, training, inventory and maintenance issues to be addressed. The RAN’s replenishment tankers need to be fixed and returned to the fleet as soon as possible. Across time, the RAN battle fleet will need to grow in size, given the rapid growth in the PLA Navy’s battle fleet.
Ideally, we should be aiming across the longer term for a battle fleet of 12 submarines, 20 major surface combatants and 20 smaller offshore combatants, the last of which could be used as missile corvettes and naval mine warfare vessels. To further enhance the RAN’s battle fleet, large landing helicopter dock vessels should be re-purposed as sea control carriers, with embarked anti-submarine and airborne early warning helicopters, and long-range naval drones.
Ensure RAAF is battle ready
Sixth, we need to ensure that the RAAF is battle ready, with its squadrons fully crewed and its air bases well protected and fully functional. It is relatively easier to expand an air force, as compared with a navy, given the vagaries of naval shipbuilding. The RAAF is therefore the better bet in terms of a rapid expansion that could be achieved soonest.
More F-35 Lightning II fighters should be acquired, along with the B-1B Lancers mentioned already. The latter could serve as an interim bomber, pending reconsideration of the acquisition of the B-21 Raider strategic bomber. Crewing ratios should be increased quickly, such that the RAAF has more crews than platforms, which could then be flown more intensively. The extraordinarily rapid expansion of the RAAF’s aircrew training pipeline in World War II should be its guiding vision.
Maritime warfare readiness
Seventh, the army should continue to develop its increasingly impressive maritime warfare capabilities and readiness. Consideration should be given to the rapid acquisition of the ground-based Typhon missile system, which would give the army a long-range anti-ship and land strike capability. As we barricade the sea-air approaches to Australia, we will have to be vigilant in relation to stealthy commando raids and sabotage operations. The army will need to be postured to deal with such attacks.
Address capability gaps
Eighth, we need to remediate a number of other capability gaps where we have no or virtually no capability. Of particular concern is integrated air and missile defence. We will need to acquire some combination of Terminal High Altitude Area Defence and Patriot interceptors on land, and SM-3 interceptors at sea. Naval mine warfare capability also needs to be addressed.
There are likely to be other gaps that would impair our ability to execute the strategy. Given the urgency of the situation, rapidly acquired interim solutions will have to suffice to fill many of these gaps. Such interim solutions can be refined and built on. That is the lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Negotiate PNG alliance
Ninth, a military alliance should be negotiated with Papua New Guinea to provide for the establishment of ADF bases in locations such as Manus, Rabaul and Lae to support the conduct of maritime surveillance, anti-surface, anti-submarine, and air superiority missions. For instance, a forward-deployed composite RAAF wing, consisting of F-35A Lightning II fighters, B-1B Lancers armed with LRASM, F/A-18F Super Hornets armed with SM-6 missiles, and P-8 Poseidon aircraft could operate from the Bismarck to the Celebes seas and beyond with the aim of denying access into our northern sea-air approaches. A similar alliance should be negotiated with The Philippines. This would extend our coverage north of the barrier into the South China Sea.
We need to better appreciate the significance of PNG and The Philippines as Pacific watchtowers of the sea-air approaches to Australia. Our Indian Ocean territories are our western watchtowers.
Develop war book
Tenth, we should urgently reinstate the practice of developing a war book that would deal with civil defence, national cyber defence, the protection of critical infrastructure and the general protection, and sustainment of the population during times of war.
While the likelihood of war in the foreseeable future is low, perhaps 10 to 20 per cent, it is enough to warrant action. This will cost money and divert resources from more agreeable activities. That is the nature of war, which drains societies even when it does not occur. Against this must be weighed the costs of being unprepared.
While this worsening strategic environment is very confronting, there is an even darker scenario. Imagine if we had to face a coercive, belligerent, and unchecked China on our own. That would require a very different military strategy and a significantly larger ADF.
That is a grim story for another day – and one that may require us to pursue our own Manhattan Project. In that world, we would look fondly on this relatively benign age.
Now here's the AI response I got with regard to the same essay, I asked it for criticism and its own proposal, with my own commentary in bold:
A Critical Analysis of Australia's Proposed Defense Strategy
The proposed alterations to Australian defense planning outline a comprehensive vision for military restructuring in response to regional threats, particularly from China. However, closer examination reveals significant practical challenges and conceptual gaps that could undermine implementation. Cringe, it doesn't need a topic statement like a university essay
Strategic Coherence vs. Practical Constraints
The recommendations build on the sensible premise of enhancing surveillance and operational readiness in Australia's immediate region. Developing a fused situational picture shared with US Indo-Pacific Command represents sound alliance management. However, this proposal glosses over the substantial personnel requirements for 24/7 operations across defense and intelligence agencies. Australia already faces defense recruitment and retention challenges, with the ADF consistently struggling to meet personnel targets. Increasing operational tempo would exacerbate crew fatigue without addressing the underlying personnel shortages. Quite right, where is the manpower coming from for this?
The proposed focus on Australia's area of direct military interest through reconfiguring Joint Operations Command reflects strategic clarity, yet organizational transformation during heightened tensions carries significant risks. Historical reorganizations, like Baker's Australian Theatre Command, often face bureaucratic resistance and implementation delays that could leave capability gaps during a critical transition period.
Capability Acquisition: Ambition vs. Reality
The article's more radical proposals expose a disconnect between strategic ambition and practical constraints. Acquiring 6-10 B-1B Lancer bombers appears compelling on paper, providing impressive anti-ship strike capability. Yet this recommendation fails to acknowledge that B-1Bs are aging platforms with declining availability in US inventories. The maintenance requirements would be substantial, and Australia lacks existing infrastructure to support heavy bombers. Pilot training pipelines would take years to develop, meaning these assets would not be operational in the short-term timeframe suggested. Nailed the key point I was hoping it'd find, buying ancient B-1 bombers is absolutely retarded, this is the drone age not the 1980s. IMO this alone puts it ahead of our self-styled military commentator in intellectual sophistication
Similarly, the naval expansion goals—growing to 12 submarines, 20 major surface combatants, and 20 smaller vessels—represent extraordinary growth beyond Australia's current shipbuilding and maintenance capacity. Australian shipyards are already struggling with existing programs like the Hunter-class frigates. This expansion would require massive industrial investment not addressed in the proposal. Moreover, the suggestion to repurpose Landing Helicopter Docks as sea control carriers overlooks their primary value as amphibious assets in a region where amphibious capability remains strategically vital. Quite right, our shipbuilding capacity is awful
Economic and Fiscal Realities
The proposals conspicuously avoid discussing costs. Implementing even half these recommendations would require defense spending well beyond Australia's current 2% of GDP. Rapid acquisition of advanced missile systems, THAAD, Patriot batteries, and SM-3 interceptors represents tens of billions in unbudgeted expenditure. The article acknowledges these measures "will cost money and divert resources from more agreeable activities" but fails to provide any framework for prioritization or cost-benefit analysis.
This fiscal blindspot undermines the strategy's credibility. Defense planners must make hard choices, yet the article presents a wishlist without acknowledging tradeoffs. A more nuanced approach would identify which capabilities deliver the most deterrent effect per dollar invested, particularly given Australia's smaller economy relative to potential adversaries. Also true, given how anemic Australian military spending is there's no point in making a huge wishlist, it needs to be sorted by priority.
Regional Politics and Forward Positioning
The proposal for military alliances with Papua New Guinea and the Philippines demonstrates strategic imagination but underestimates complex regional politics. PNG maintains significant economic ties with China, with Chinese companies heavily invested in resource extraction and infrastructure projects. The proposal ignores how these economic relationships could complicate security arrangements.
Forward basing Australian forces in PNG would require substantial infrastructure investment in relatively underdeveloped regions. Environmental impacts and relations with local communities present additional challenges not addressed in the proposal. Forward deployment also creates vulnerabilities—assets based closer to potential adversaries become targets themselves, requiring additional defensive capabilities not accounted for in the proposal.
Unaddressed Domains: Cyber, Space, and Information
The most glaring omission is the limited attention to cyber capabilities, space assets, and information operations. Modern military effectiveness depends increasingly on these domains, yet they receive passing mention at best. The proposal focuses heavily on kinetic capabilities while undervaluing the critical enabling functions of secure communications, positioning systems, and intelligence networks.
Australia's dependence on space-based systems for the proposed surveillance network creates vulnerabilities that determined adversaries would target early in any conflict. A more robust strategy would incorporate redundancy, resilience, and active defenses for these critical systems. Absolutely right, even if we did get the B1s how are we going to get them into the action without good targeting data from satellites?
The Nuclear Question
Perhaps most provocatively, the article concludes by alluding to "our own Manhattan Project" for a scenario where Australia faces China alone. This veiled reference to developing nuclear weapons raises profound questions left entirely unaddressed. Australia's longstanding commitment to non-proliferation, uranium export controls, and alliance with nuclear-armed nations would all be compromised by such a path. The international repercussions would be immense, potentially undermining the very security such weapons supposedly provide. OK, this is blather, we get it, Claude is leftwing. Also I don't see how it would inherently harm our relations with the US if we acquired nuclear weapons, though Claude may well be drawing from the history where the US talked us into joining the NPT and scuppering our nuclear program
A More Balanced Approach
A more realistic strategy would prioritize capabilities that leverage Australia's geographical advantages and alliance relationships without overextending resources. Focusing on undersea warfare, advanced sensors, unmanned systems, and cyber capabilities would provide greater deterrent effect than trying to match adversaries across all domains.
Australia should invest more in sovereign capabilities that reduce dependency on extended supply chains vulnerable to disruption. Developing domestic missile production, enhanced fuel security, and critical technology sectors would strengthen resilience while supporting the defense industrial base.
The future Australian Defense Force needs to be not just larger but smarter—emphasizing quality over quantity, asymmetric advantages over symmetrical competition, and sustainability over surge capacity. Rather than attempting to bar the sea-air approaches to Australia completely, a more nuanced strategy would focus on making adversary operations prohibitively costly through layered defensive capabilities and strategic uncertainty. boilerplate but not wrong
A truly comprehensive approach would also incorporate non-military elements of national power. Economic relationships, diplomatic initiatives, international law, and regional institutions all contribute to Australia's security. Military capabilities remain essential, but they function most effectively as part of a broader national strategy that maximizes all instruments of influence. Lmao at 'regional institutions' and 'international law' beating China, though you can interpret this as code for out-bribing China in the tiny Pacific countries while keeping the holier than thou attitude.
The proposals offer valuable ideas worth consideration, but implementation would require careful phasing, priority-setting, and recognition of practical constraints that the current analysis largely overlooks.
On balance I think Claude makes better points and presents a boring but more reasonable plan for Australia. It's unrealistic to go 'spend infinity dollars and buy everything we need plus more we don't' and 'ramp up everything to maximum'.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
His writing is almost certainly in the top 99th percentile of writing skills, and certainly far better than yours or mine.
Have you ever actually worked with journalists as a collective, not just a few people? I know someone in regular contact with the media. Many journalists are fools who can't even ask a clear question! They often don't understand what you're saying and introduce errors if you make any kind of complex point. Not to mention all the sloppy typos that go to press. What they're really good at is taking down talking points from corporations or media manipulators and regurgitating it as legitimate news.
First-rate LLMs are easily on par with the average journalist and that's extending every generosity to the humans.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
The US maintains about 100,000 troops overseas in Europe. If Europe can't deploy a quarter of that number to Ukraine as peacekeepers, how much help are they actually going to be if they actually have to defend Estonia or Latvia?
The Europeans as a collective have huge forces, they just don't want to use them. They have 2 million active troops and huge potential mobilization. It's taken Russia ages to chew through the population of Ukraine, barring all else the EU could just throw meat at them over a huge front until they win. I guess it's unlikely they'd have the will to do this but that brings us back to will, not capability.
It makes no strategic sense to send peacekeepers to Ukraine. Why take risks for no reward? What are the benefits of moving into Ukraine? Hans and Roger and Jean don't see it as their war, they're just not that enthusiastic about supporting the enterprise, risking their lives.
There's a media cinematic universe where Putler must be stopped and we must show Resolve and Defend the Rules Based Order and in that world it makes sense to send troops to Ukraine. Otherwise Putler will keep on invading the Baltics or Finland or wherever else. But why would he do this? How do the cost-benefit ratios weigh up for Russia?
From the European perspective (albeit not the Polish or Baltic perspective), the most valuable thing in Ukraine is gas transit routes to Russia. Not pretend rare earths reserves or gas resources that are a fraction of Russia's. These can't be defended by frustrating Russia, quite the opposite.
EU policy is trapped between reality and the MCU, so they need to fight for freedom but not so much that they'll actually win. I think it's all a giant façade. This is the best explanation for the humiliating 'yes we will, no we won't' approach by Keir Starmer and Macron, they're in a dreamy state between the MCU and reality.
I'm aware of a research report by some neocon think tank that said 'if we lose Ukraine then the EU will have to station all these troops in Romania and the Russian air defence zone will advance forwards and that will leave us weak in the Baltics. I don't understand this line of argument, if you have more of everything save nukes then you ought to win, regardless of whether the front line becomes marginally shorter or longer.
If the much richer, more advanced, populous EU can't beat a corrupt Russian oligarchy without the US despite the enemy having a fraction of the resources then there's no point in defending it, there's no point strategizing to advance its position. Clearly the entire political system is grossly inadequate, EU corruption and demoralization must be far greater than Russian... Or they can win and there's no need to worry.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Are normies, even somewhat intelligent ones, incapable of distinguishing the most obvious stinky smelly chatgpt output?
Claude Sonnet 3.6 outright changes their minds if well-prompted. The cat is out of the bag, the genie has left the bottle.
https://axisofordinary.substack.com/p/links-for-2025-04-30 - scroll down to the images
notably all our treatments surpass human performance substantially, achieving persuasive rates between 3 and 6 times higher
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
People need to learn to be a bit more inconvenienced and uncomfortable.
Why? The goal should be for public transport to be convenient, cheap and comfortable. Americans seem to be disillusioned about ever having non-shithole city centres. Is it seriously that hard to get rid of the problem people? Compared to redesigning a century of infrastructure and culture so as to force people to suffer inconveniences and discomfort? Grow a spine!
I remember being quite surprised by San Francisco, Vancouver and LA, how there were just loads of homeless occupying prominent places and shooting up in public. It's not normal outside North America. You're not supposed to see drug use in public.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
I don't understand how anyone can in good faith believe that even with an arbitrary amount of effort and funding, AGI, let alone ASI, is coming in the next few years. Any projection out decades is almost definitionally in the realm of speculative science-fiction here. Even mundane tech can't be predicted decades out, and AI has higher ceilings/variance than most things.
I put in a few thousand lines of code into an AI, ask it to change it to fix this issue... and it can do it. Sometimes it can't and it gives me a broken fix, other times I have to try several times or go through various stages of brainstorming, log-analysis, trial and error, workarounds.
If you're doing intellectual labour (this is intellectual labour, it's producing code that earns revenue) then you must be intelligent not in the 'answers toy questions' sense but the 'does useful work' sense. If it is intelligent, then AGI shouldn't be far away. It's only a matter of investment and incremental development.
AI is a question of fundamental possibility: by contrast, with AI, there is no good reason to think we can create AI sufficient to replace OpenAI-grade researchers with forseeable timelines/tech. Junior SWEs, maybe, but it's not even clear they're on average positive-value beyond the investment in their future
Fundamental possibility is deader than disco. There is no reason for doubt at this point. You think there's an insurmountable gap between Junior SWE and senior SWE? That's ridiculously silly. There was no insurmountable gap between 'can't walk except on perfectly straight floor at 3 kph' and 'diving through hills, scrabbling around obstacles, getting up after being knocked over'.
There wasn't an insurmountable gap between 'the most deranged and hilariously stupid pretend harry potter writing imaginable' https://youtube.com/watch?v=6rEkKWXCcR4 and 'any story imaginable written in perfect, fully meaningful English albeit usually (but not always) lacking in literary merit but at a very reasonable price'.
There wasn't an insurmountable gap between 'can't identify a cat' and 'short videos of catgirls'.
There wasn't an insurmountable gap between 'literally no code at all' and 'Stackexchange withering away'.
There's no reason for doubt, you can't even give a reason except these elaborate statements of surety. I don't understand how what you're saying even resembles a valid argument. Forget about whether the premises are true or if the argument follows, there are no premises in what you're saying!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
The Democrats made a compelling case for their own inferiority during Biden-Harris, but the Republicans are lapping them pretty hard right now, and I’m prepared to declare statistical significance.
The trouble is that left-wing/centrist wrecking of the economy is totally normalized and proceeds in boring administrative steps. Biden initiated an inflationary spending plan to invest in inefficient energy production (the Green New Deal), he continued along with costly DEI programs. Trump has launched an inflationary and chaotic tariff agenda. Both things can be bad but one is more spectacular and novel than the other.
In Australia there's been all kinds of discussion and criticism over Trump's tariffs despite the fact that we sell the US very little. Meanwhile the government's been inflating a massively fraudulent disability program. Costs are growing about $5 billion a year on a $40 billion base, it's about the size of Australia's defence budget. Providers are eagerly sucking on the teat of the government, creating imaginary disabilities and getting the government to pay for them. It's institutionalizing and subsidizing deliberate incapacity, if children have trouble at school there are ways to find that they're disabled whereupon they get special accommodations and help.
I have no doubt that similar levels of fraud and wasteful largesse are happening in America, albeit scaled up massively. Huge numbers of New Yorkers are paid as carers for family. Do they actually need that care? Nobody knows and there's no way to find out without making lots of people very angry, going to the media with sob stories, real or imaginary. And because of that it's all shrouded in euphemisms. There's endless discourse about getting costs under control. Costs aren't actually brought under control of course, we might go from galloping bureaucracy to a gentle canter. And nobody would dare to dispute the pressing need to guarantee boomers as many subsidies and entitlements as the state can afford, if not more. That's what they have in the UK, with the 'triple lock' where pensions are decreed to grow with the highest of inflation, wages or 2.5%.
All this redistribution constrains investment. We know how to grow prosperity and improve quality of life. R&D + capital deepening. But you can't do much of that if you're busy extracting as much wealth as you can from the productive economy to bribe huge swathes of the electorate.
However, tariffs make almost nobody better off so everyone can freely declare that they're retarded and thus it seems like Trump's policies are especially harmful when they're only especially stupid and the true balance of harm is yet to be seen.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Say I make a piece of software people want to enjoy. I can release it for free (and have done so tbh because I made something for an incredibly tiny niche of people). But I'm obviously going to put more effort into something I expect to get payment from. People want work which lots of effort has gone into. Isn't it appropriate that they pay me? Plus I need to pay my web hosts and service providers. It costs them physical resources and human effort to make their product. If lazy and uncreative people get the fruits of the diligent and inventive's labours then why would anyone be diligent or inventive?
Coding is one thing, physical labour and danger is another. Who the hell is going to work in a bauxite mine unless they're being paid for it?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Immigration is absolutely about power and wealth. People in Britain are working for years so that low-skilled or unemployed migrants can enjoy state accommodation in hotels or social housing.
The example I gave was money but other things have the same basis in zero-sum conflict of interests. Either whites can go around killing blacks with legal impunity or the other way around or some balance in between. Whites get affirmative action, or blacks get it, or Indians get it, or low-castes get it, or whoever... My free speech is free speech, yours is hate speech or obscene... Climate change is about the balance of power between industry and bureaucrats/academics, about state power vs personal power, subsidies for renewables vs economic efficiency...
Gaza is zero-sum. Who gets it? Israel or Palestine? The Israelis find all these principles about why they should win and their enemies should lose, vis versa with the Palestinians. There are exceptions on both sides but the general trend is that the justifications come after the desire. There's a bigger exception in whites generally giving up huge advantages with regard to race but that's a special case that requires intense media/education work to build and maintain.
Power >>> principles. Many women want the power to abort their children and that will for power trumps one of the strongest principles we can think of, as seen in abortion rates. Since the 1970s they've aborted more children than men have killed in all wars IIRC.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Politics is innately partisan and ugly. It's all about control of power and wealth. If I get a pension, you don't get a free education or he has to work harder and pay more taxes. It's mostly zero-sum.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
If you subsidize lawyers, you'll get more of them. There are already way too many lawyers in Anglosphere countries.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legal-profession/demographics/
The largest increase in lawyers occurred in the 1970s, when the number of lawyers jumped 76% — from 326,000 in 1970 to 574,000 in 1980.
WTH happened in 1971 may well have something to do with lawyers.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Yes. It doesn't really address this.
It also explains why this plot wasn't uncovered: because there are like, three people that would have to know about it, not even including Epstein's lawyers. Epstein could have just made up a sob-story and convinced a correctional officer to look the other way himself, or promised the officer his lawyers would pay them after the fact, and then didn't, because arranging that would be more complicated and time consuming.
What kind of sob story gets you to erase video evidence and bring down a huge shitstorm on yourself with a high profile prisoner? 'Bro I'll totally pay you after you've done this insanely illegal thing'?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
How does he get money to the prison guards as a prisoner?
If he did bribe a guard, presumably it would've emerged. Lots of people were very interested in this case! A guard-level conspiracy should be easy to uncover compared to a 'friends in high places' level conspiracy. Instead we got the 'oh he killed himself somehow' story peddled as the official party line which favours 'friends in high places'.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
We live in a society where even approaching young adult women is fraught with risk. 'Inappropriate' comments can ruin careers. Consensual relationships in the workplace are a recipe for disaster if the woman regrets it later on. Even degenerate fictional stories on obscure corners of the web feel some need to say that all involved are 18 or higher.
But billionaires get open license for underage pussy because they're rich? No, they should face the same crushing punishments inflicted on ordinary people who have sex with underage women, regardless of whatever ameliorating circumstances there are. 'But she consented' is not an excuse when some drunk guy hooks up with a drunk girl on a university campus.
Take their money away, ruin their lives, send them to prison, ruin their reputation. Rules should be applied fairly or not at all. If you think the rule is dumb or should be adjusted, even more reason for it to be applied to elites as well.
Furthermore, Epstein committing 'suicide' in the anti-suicide ward while the cameras were conveniently switched off is clear proof of some kind of paedophile-sex ring deeply embedded in the US government. The Q people were directionally correct.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
If there's a future democratic administration, they'll surely undo all Trump's internal culture war executive orders as soon as they can or route around them somehow. It wasn't a great look for Biden to open the floodgates of illegal immigrants but he did it anyway, I don't think they care much about optics in the 'I shall not do this since it will lower my popularity' sense, rather it's the 'if people don't like this we need to improve our messaging' kind of optics. Only if that fails massively and obviously do they change course and grudgingly lock up the criminals, as has been happening in San Francisco.
In Washington State they're giving grants to black homeowners as reparations. That's probably not too popular with the voters but who cares? You can just do things.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
You know better than anyone that the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. At the same time, it seems like you are expanding the power of the presidency. Why do you think you need more power?
The US President is not very powerful, all things considered. Random judges can impose blocks on his domestic policies. He needs the approval of legislators to make permanent changes and the US legislative branch seems to be very slow and inefficient.
What has Trump got the power to achieve? He can bomb countries but struggles to achieve desired political results. Bombing Yemen hasn't stopped them. He makes motions towards annexing Greenland and Canada but can't actually get it off the ground. He can't end the war in Ukraine. He can pump and dump stocks with tariffs but can't fundamentally rearrange global trade in the US's favour, American manufacturing has actually been declining since tariffs began.
He can, over many years, create a few hundred kilometres of border wall that's easily diverted around by future administrations. He can cut taxes and run up debt. He can accelerate COVID vaccine development but can't take credit for it, can barely even convince his supporters to take it. He can beat ISIS, with the help of Russia, EU, Iran, Iraq, Syrian govt, Kurds and co.
The US presidency's main powers are the ability to flail around in highly energetic ways. Xi seems significantly more powerful, he has the ability to create and control, enforce his vision in his own country at minimum. Xi wants less real estate and more manufacturing, it happens. Xi wants a stronger PLA and PLAN, it happens. His fleet isn't shrinking. Xi wants subversive NGOs shut down, they're shut down. Xi wants autarchic economics, domestic food and energy production, it's happening. Xi wants Taiwan but hasn't achieved it.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Airstrikes and more skirmishing on the border that doesn't end in a major war isn't particularly significant as an outcome. Even the Kargil War was a nothingburger, there were no major consequences besides India-Pakistan relations remaining very bad.
ISI is sure to direct great effort into blowing up any dams that threaten Pakistani water, that's actually in their core national interest. If the Indus starts to be choked off, then that would be a major event but it seems unlikely.
Pakistan-Indian strife
There was a terror attack in Indian Kashmir, likely stemming from Pakistani intelligence (they all come from Pakistani intelligence in that part of the world).
India has announced measures targeting Pakistan, a day after 26 people were killed by gunmen at a Himalayan tourist attraction in Indian-administered Kashmir.
They include the closure of the main border crossing linking the two countries, the suspension of a landmark water-sharing treaty, the expulsion of diplomats and an order for some Pakistani visa holders to leave within 48 hours.
India also said it would suspend the Indus Water Treaty - a treaty that has been in place since 1960 and survived decades of hostile diplomacy.
The treaty gives India control over the eastern rivers, and Pakistan the western ones, of the Indus river and its tributaries. The agreement stipulates that India must, with few exceptions, allow water from the western rivers to flow downstream into Pakistan.
Both sides have also been cancelling visas and expelling diplomats willy-nilly:
India and Pakistan have announced tit-for-tat suspensions of visas for each other's citizens with immediate effect in the aftermath of the deadly attack on tourists in Kashmir that killed at least 26 people.
Pakistan on Thursday cancelled visas for Indian nationals, closed its airspace for all India-owned or India-operated airlines, and suspended all trade with India including to and from any third country. Islamabad also reportedly expelled all Indian defence, air and naval attaches.
In a statement issued at around the same time, India's foreign ministry said all visas issued to Pakistani nationals would be revoked with effect from Sunday. It advised Indian citizens not to travel to Pakistan, and for any Indian citizens in Pakistan to leave as soon as possible.
Goes to show that you can just do things as a state, you can expel whole peoples if you want. On the other hand, India doesn't have the state apparatus needed to actually get rid of them AFAIK. America as a whole has the power but not the will, India has the will but not the power.
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1915364624335098031
India has deployed its INS Vikrant aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea.
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1915521996353360267
Reports of cross-border shelling and light arms fire between India and Pakistan in the Leepa Valley, Kashmir.
In spite of all this, I'm betting on 'nothingburger'. There have been bigger terror attacks in the past, there have been countless skirmishes in Kashmir, jets have been shot down... India doesn't really have the means to stop the water flowing down to Pakistan (imagine being a worker on such a damming project in Kashmir of all places, you'd need to sleep with both eyes open).
Also, the Indian military isn't that strong. They're stronger than Pakistan but not that much stronger, they lost the last aerial skirmish. What were they doing still flying the Mig-21 in 2019, let alone in combat? It was obsolete 40 years ago! Pakistan has similarly ancient equipment in places but also a decent amount of modern Chinese gear. There may be a certain level of national wealth/ambition that paradoxically diminishes combat power. Pakistan is humble enough not to try and develop everything themselves, so they get local-built Chinese jets, US jets... India has great power pretensions and so embarks on expensive domestic military R&D projects while also buying a smorgasbord of foreign equipment as the domestic projects underperform or are delayed due to resource limitations. You need those capabilities to be a great power but it's not cheap!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Ending the nuclear arms race saved money and reduced costs, plus it's innately obvious that stacking up 50,000 H-bombs the great powers psy-opped into being unusable 99% of the time is somewhat dangerous and over the top. ASI is different, it's anywhere, anytime, for any purpose.
I think you underestimate the power of the forces behind AI. Everyone interested in technology wants it. Even if there's a full nuclear exchange, the surviving great powers and mega-corps will work far harder to achieve it and secure the strength and security that they so clearly need. The entrenched interests aren't so much Microsoft and DARPA but anyone with wealth, technology and a desire for power. WW3 going ugly would reduce the first two but ramp up the latter massively.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
It's easier to see 'somehow we get ASI working for us or some subgroup of us' than 'everyone agrees to halt the race for power and profit and actually does so'. Not once in history has everyone stopped in a race for power and profit like this. Human cloning never even got off the ground, nobody was lobbying for it.
But if you wipe out the capital cities, then what is the point of the Liberal Party or Labour? Can't prop up housing market if the houses are vaporized!
Seriously, I don't understand the result at all. I guess everyone decided the economic meltdown wasn't Albanese's fault and that his promise to lower power prices (when they then rose) was fine at the time. Or perhaps it's demographics = destiny time.
Bizarre how Reform seems to have ignored the anti-anti-incumbent trend, they're somehow not tarred by association with Trump despite Farage being closer to Trump than most.
More options
Context Copy link