VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
Nonetheless, every single person I know who is worth more than $10 million reached that position through inheritance or marriage.
I guess I know a different crowd (American, here), but I know a few folks in that scale, all of whom are retired, married professionals (doctors, medium-tier business executives, engineers) that spent within their means and lived comparatively modestly and drive Toyotas. Maybe they inherited some of it, but it wasn't the majority of their income. But you also probably wouldn't know those details unless you were close to them: the millionaire-next-door types don't tend to talk much about money.
SpaceX exists because Elon Musk willed it into existence through what can only be described as an unreasonable application of personal capital, obsession, and tolerance for failure.
I think it owes a big part to a whole generation of engineers that wanted to build spaceships, but previously had to settle for either pushing paperwork on mundane siloed details at BigGovCo contracting for NASA or the DOD, or settling for work outside of aerospace. I know some of them. The stream of smart college graduates willing to work long hours for peanuts just because the work was cool was there before, but not the money to pay for peanuts and materials. I'll give credit for the funding and risk-taking, but I have more mixed feelings on building an empire on burning out smart early-career engineers.
I would observe that Lloyd's doesn't have the power to shoot back at and neutralize hazards to navigation or threaten Iranian oil infrastructure (Kharg Island, perhaps) in return, and has to additionally assume the risk that the US might choose not to protect ships, not just that it would fail in doing so.
IMO the most egregious detail there is that Proposition 8 passed. A majority of California voters were effectively deemed to be too far-right to be acceptable leadership. Perhaps uncharitably, this policy is also vaguely racist, given the demographics on that proposition's supporters included disproportionate numbers of minorities.
Most serious proposals (NERVA et al, IIRC a few reactors have even been flown) launch fueled but never turned on until safely in orbit, such that if you atomized it on reentry you'd only end up with an enriched uranium scattered all over, but not all the random decay products with shorter half-lives you'd expect in an operational reactor. AFAIK a sub critical mass of U235 isn't amazingly hazardous. Still not great, but nowhere near as bad.
IMO it'd still be stupid to use something like a nuclear saltwater rocket or Project Orion on Earth. I could maybe be convinced that it's "safe enough" out of the local area, though.
Conceivably, if the price of gold were to crash drastically (sorry, gold bugs) it would open lots of industrial/consumer uses for a corrosion-resistant metal that is a good conductor.
Asides from a crazy YouTuber, I'm not sure who is doing self-sustaining small-scale biosphere research these days. Which is a pity because if Elon (not personally a fan) were ever serious about colonization he could have thrown some money at it. And there are a few potential earth-side uses too (fallout bunkers, seasteading, submarines). It seems like the minimal project isn't that large, maybe the size of a garage, and IMO Biosphere 2 went a completely wrong direction in trying to build a diverse zoo, rather than a simple [1] nutritionally-optimized yeast/algae closed loop.
- Note that this is not at all simple, but it's presumably easier than a biosphere with dozens of plant species and other animals.
Related: a few (former?) forum regulars have gone on to national-level profiles via Substack or Twitter.
Poorly-organized mobs can still engage in ethnic cleansing: see Rwanda. International law, to the extent it exists, found no trouble finding and convicting people for it.
An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land
We had that: international parties Sykes and Picot (with the assent of a few other powers) decided the land was properly British. Surely everyone there will agree to abide by this arrangement.
Sarcasm, if unclear, but I doubt you could get the parties involved to agree to binding international mediation for much the same reasons that fell apart to begin with.
I generally agree with you, I'm just observing it's a huge ask and probably a hard sell.
"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it. I doubt the Russian inspectors in the US were ever allowed into Area 51, for example.
That presumes the US would be willing to fight and defeat the IDF (and also the other relevant parties) to enforce an outcome there, which seems laughable. It'd make invading Greenland (which by all accounts polled terribly) seem like a good idea, and isn't something a democratically-elected US government is likely to do.
How is America the victor in the 1948 (or choose a more recent one if you want) war between the current state of Israel and various Arab powers (including the Palestinians) in the former British Mandate of Palestine to legislate the outcome? It wasn't a party there.
Notably, the Nuremberg court never bothered to try Soviet officers for similar Red Army war crimes. Katayn, for example. Has "international law" ever been much more than vae victis?
I tend to avoid sequels for this reason. I think some of it is, for me, that the world building in a brand new story is really interesting, but sequels either drag along accumulated baggage of the world (Marvel of late has done poorly on this), or lazily skip over any new exposition within the narrative (this script was originally an episode for another TV show). Both end up being detrimental to the story as a whole. And sometimes you start running into the structural contradictions woven into the environment.
I think successful sequels have to do something to transcend the original story. Terminator 2 and Aliens both subvert the genre from horror to action movie IMO successfully. The Empire Strikes Back is a very different movie than Star Wars. But that isn't a guarantee of success: IMO all the Jurassic Park sequels fall short of the original in emphasizing "dinosaur eats humans" action over the original's balance with philosophical science fiction questions.
If you have the time, you could also structure it over time to fall within the IRS gift limit: This year they could each give you $19k without federal tax implications. Ask a real professional about capital gains basis changes and state implications, though.
A bit of a joke: the sets of people that see American forces as a proxy for Israel and those that see action against Iran as justifiable are pretty close to disjoint.
Sarcastically: if it's fair game for Iran to attack Israel through its proxy militia Hezbollah, then it's fair game for Israel to attack Iran with its proxy American forces.
If unclear, Anthropic is pretty clearly advertising themselves as "ones who cared", and yet was willing to contract with the government (which had previously lied to Congress about these activities, and would presumably have even fewer qualms lying to contractors) anyway, presumably with dollar signs in their eyes. Are we really talking principles here? Or are we just haggling about the price?
Unless someone finds an uninhabited island with guano deposits.
Leaning on other Gulf states like that works, until it doesn't: at some level of retaliation, they presumably will think it's easier to rip the band-aid off and support regime change.
mass domestic surveillance
What do people even mean by this anymore? Do people think they stopped after the Snowden leaks? I'm old enough to remember liking candidate "constitutional law professor" Barack Obama criticizing the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, then disliking his choice to promptly decide to continue and expand it once he was elected. Or tech companies opposing PRISM leaks before promptly jumping at the chance to (algorithmically, I'm sure) ban things that the Biden administration asked them to. Very stunning and brave moral record they've got going there.
I'm not sure I should trust Anthropic to be a better moral actor than the government here: they were willing to dance with the devil they already knew was doing this sort of thing, selling a product for which this is probably one of the clearest use cases. To be clear, I'm not the biggest fan of such programs continuing (although I can acknowledge they might be quietly stopping all kinds of bad actors), I'm just jaded from literal decades of "principled" stands against it mostly just sweeping things under the rug.
ETA:
Anthropic wanted contractual guarantees against things that are supposedly already illegal.
If I had to guess, Anthropic wants to be the ultimate arbiter of what "the law" says here (or at least, what their "contractual guarantees" mean). So does the administration (and I'm sure the judiciary is willing to fight them on that on occasion).
Thinking about it, this isn't exactly new policy: The second half of 1990 included "Operation Desert Shield", the operation just to relocate the assets for the actual Gulf War took almost 6 months, and wasn't quiet. The bombardment took a few weeks, and the actual ground invasion just a few days.
- Prev
- Next

I see the reasons for this comparison, and it makes a lot of sense to me: Congress has continued to cede more and more of its authority to the Executive. I'm not going to say that the current Trump administration hasn't tried to use that in novel way at a rate matching or exceeding his predecessors. But I also only see push-back on this one from the conservative side of aisle: the Roberts court has a continuing theme in its jurisprudence of telling Congress that it actually has to govern (overturning Chevron, the Major Questions Doctrine), and some of its most prominent members were nominated by Trump himself and confirmed by a right-leaning Senate.
It's easy (and sometimes tempting) to compare Trump to Caesar, but the right itself seems split on the direction to go there, not even forming Trump contra Roberts factions. And the left, which also occasionally makes these comparisons, doesn't seem to, at least from where I sit, have a coherent idea of what to do about it at all, not even something like wholesale backing the Roberts court on those principles.
More options
Context Copy link