domain:drmanhattan16.substack.com
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
11hr ago
I do find it funny/trendy when people label "eating a late breakfast" as intermittent fasting.
Why not? A late breakfast and an early dinner is the easiest form of IF.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
12hr ago
You've probably been hearing that we're in an AI bubble. I think that's both loaded and reductive, and I'd like to take some time to help people understand the nuances of the situation we're currently in, because it's deep. To be clear, I am pro AI as a technology and I have an economic interest in its success (and for reasons I'll discuss, so should you), however there is a lot more going on that I don't agree with that I'd like to raise awareness of.
AI capital investments are running far ahead of expected returns, and the pace of investment is accelerating. Analysts estimate AI-linked activity drove roughly 40–90% of H1-2025 U.S. GDP growth and 75–80% of S&P 500 gains. If it wasn't for AI investments, it's likely the United States would be in a recession right now. According to Harris Kupperman of Praetorian Capital “the industry probably needs a revenue range that is closer to the $320 billion to $480 billion range, just to break even on the capex to be spent this year.” It sure sounds like a bubble, however thinking of it as just another bubble would be doing a disservice to the magnitude of the dynamics at play here. To understand why, we have to explore the psychology of the investors involved and the power circles they're operating in.
The elites of Silicon Valley have cozied up to Donald Trump in a way that's unprecedented in the history of modern democracy. They've lined the pockets of his presidential library foundation, supported his white house renovations, paid for his inauguration and provided a financial lifeline for the Republican party. Between Elon Musk, David Sacks, Sriram Krishnan, Peter Thiel and his acolyte J.D. Vance, Trump has been sold the story that AI dominance is a strategic asset of vital importance to national security (there's probably also a strong ego component, America needs "the best AI, such a beautiful AI"). I'm not speculating, this is clearly written into the BBB and the language of multiple executive orders. These people think AI is the last thing humans will invent, and the first person to have it will reap massive rewards until the other powers can catch up. As such, they're willing to bend the typical rules of capitalism. Think of this as the early stages of a wartime economy.
[...]
I'm going to say something that sounds a little crazy, but please bear with me: from a geopolitical perspective, what we're doing is a rational play, and depending on how valuable/powerful you expect AI to be and how hostile you expect a dominant China to be, possibly a near optimal one. If you're a traditional capitalist, it probably looks like a bad move to you regardless of your beliefs about AI; you're going to need to put those aside. This is not a traditional economic situation. We're in an arms race, and we're veering into a wartime economy, or at least that's how the powerful view it.
[...]
Returning to the traditional capitalists, I'd like to note that they aren't wrong; this AI push is unsustainable (for us). I'm not sure how long we can run our economy hot and directed before the wheels come off, but my napkin estimate is between 5-10 years, though it's likely we'll lose the political will to keep pushing before that point if the AI transformation is underwhelming and we still have a democracy. To further support the traditional capitalists' position, if AI unwinds at that point having under-delivered, the economic damage will probably be an order of magnitude greater than if we had just let the bubble deflate naturally. This will be exacerbated by the favorable treatment the administration will make sure the Oligarchs receive; we will suffer, they will coast.
Where does all this leave us? For one, you better hope and pray that AI delivers a magical transformation, because if it doesn't, the whole economy will collapse into brutal serfdom. When I say magic here, I mean it; because of the ~38T national debt bomb, a big boost is not enough. If AI doesn't completely transform our economy, the massive capital misallocation combined with the national debt is going to cause our economy to implode.
I don't have the expertise needed to evaluate the economic arguments, so I'm mainly posting this here to solicit feedback on the linked article.
It's probably too late to avoid a future of "brutal serfdom" regardless of what happens, even if we reach singularity escape velocity. Power will do what it always has done, which is centralize in the hands of a few to the detriment of the many; turning every human into a cyborg god won't change that (you simply have the problem of organizing the coexistence of cyborg gods rather than the problem of organizing the coexistence of baseline humans). To think otherwise is to implicitly rely on a Rousseauean (and anti-Hobbesean, channeling Hlynka) presupposition that people are basically good and just and suffering is merely an incidental byproduct of material lack, which we have reason to be skeptical of. The second half of the 20th century provided what were probably the most fertile material and social conditions for freedom that have ever been seen in human history; regardless of wherever we're going now, we're leaving freedom in the rear-view mirror.
cae_jones
12hr ago
FWICT, the right believes that Trump is in the process of trying to rig the elections by:
- Deporting illegals, since many on the right believe that places like California and Oregon actually have been making it possible for them to vote.
- Pushing for more gerrymandering, claiming it's in defiance of far more extreme democrat gerrymandering.
- The VRA is currently before SCOTUS, and if gutted, could lead to the loss of several majority black districts in the South.
Additionally, the Putin loophole does not seem to be addressed in the 22nd Amendment. I think Trump running as Vance's VP as a backdoor into a third term would go against the spirit of the 22nd, but whether it's actually forbidden would be something the courts would have to decide.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
12hr ago
My wife and kids are my meaning generator. The low COL area is where some of my extended family lives, and it is religiously, politically, and culturally compatible. Job market is meh, but I've been working remote for years now. I should probably just take a lower-gear tech job and just ride it for a while.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
12hr ago
Interesting article: Renault–Geely engine unit speeds up as EV shift stutters
When French carmaker Renault and China's Geely carved out their combustion-engine operations in 2022, the venture looked like a footnote to an outdated technology. Now, Horse Powertrain has a new lease of life.
The joint venture aims to become the world's top engine maker by 2035, betting that legacy carmakers pivoting to EVs will still need suppliers to make combustion engines for them as the energy transition stutters.
Pitching itself as a one-stop shop for automakers, producing everything from hybrid engines to the small combustion units that extend range in plug-in EVs, Horse is targeting annual revenue of 15 billion euros (17 billion dollars) by 2029, up 80 % from 2024, according to a Reuters analysis.
Giannini says Horse is currently the world's no. 3 engine maker, with 17 engine and transmission factories previously run by Renault, Geely Holding, and Geely unit Volvo Cars, including eight in China.
Horse's [CEO Matias] Giannini expects 50 % of new cars to be EVs in 2040. Others predict more. But, even then, tens of millions of new hybrid cars will still need engines.
"Let automakers concentrate on their transition to EVs… while we support them with highly efficient hybrid engines and transmissions," Giannini said.
Renault expects to save 2 billion euros in engine development by 2030 via outsourcing to Horse, and Giannini is pitching those savings to new customers.
Horse currently produces over eight million engines and transmissions annually for more than 15 automakers, including Renault, Dacia, Volvo Cars, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Mercedes-Benz.
According to a source close to the matter, Horse is pursuing about 100 projects across all its products and markets—from cars to boats, construction equipment, and drones.
Geely and Renault own 45 % of Horse each. Oil producer Saudi Aramco owns the remaining 10 %.
Horse itself is betting on new technologies, including plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). It has also launched a suitcase-sized combustion engine for extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs), which use a small engine to boost an EV's range.
I feel like the premise is false. Consumption takes a very small amount of resources.
The question real question is: would you be fine living in a low COL area with all the social isolation (moving away from family and friends) and lack of services that entails? Otherwise the question should be what amount of money for consumption do you need per year in order to be satisfied, to which the answer for me is almost nothing.
I don't work in order to be able to consume more, I work to pay for my house and as a meaning generator.
Corvos
12hr ago
Used to be common, maybe these days a bit less so as ‘Reds’ stopped being a thing 95% of people could agree are bad.
Often indicative of deeper beliefs
It can be that, but it can also be the complete opposite. For example, I trust myself to not engage in immoral behaviour, therefore I do not walk on egg-shells around moral subjects (this scares the shit out of some people, though)
Homosexuals might find it easier to joke about how gay they are, but as will straight people who have overcome any fear of being thought of as gay, because they know for sure that they're not. As with the Horse Shoe Theory, the correlation is curved.
A lot of people with dark humor have been victims of the things that they joke about, by the way. I find it quite distasteful when people who haven't experienced such things accuse them of being insensitive, which is often what happens. Too much morality is performative, and I find this whole situation to be another instance of people point fingers at others in order to feel morally superior and score virtue signaling points, or at the very least it's a reaction prompted by fear (rather than goodwill, taste, actual concern, etc)
You could argue that some jokes are bad taste, but I think this depends on a lot of factors, and that most of them are hard to judge from an outside perspective. Once you know a person well, you will be able to tell their real attitude towards things that they joke about, and the mindset which prompted the joke.
Edit: Extra thing of note: If somebody is a bad person, it's better for everyone if they show it than to hide it. For this reason, I see no point in punishing speech even if it's vile.
SkoomaDentist
The Greater Finnish Empire
13hr ago
How do those countries handle cases of "odd jobs" and stuff like that? If you're a farmer that makes money by, I dunno, selling grain, how does the government know how much was sold? Or if you sell goods/services direct to consumers?
A farmer already has a business, so those would be handled the same way as any other business transactions. Selling small scale goods / services requires reporting the income if it exceeds a small threshold, but that's still fairly easy and can be done online. If it's more substantial, you may want to start a business. There are also services for people who do occasionally freelancing gigs that charge a small percentage fee to act as their official employers, so the client doesn't have to deal with paperwork and the person doesn't have to deal with the extra complexity of starting up a business.
FtttG
13hr ago
I had heard of it before, but using "watermelon" in reference to pro-Palestine types seems overwhelmingly more likely.
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
13hr ago
While this is true, amongst the young it’s mostly used to describe pro-Hamas types on social media who use the watermelon emoji because it has the same colors as the flag of Palestine (🇵🇸 🍉)
When I think of a watermelon in a political sense I think of what you’re describing, a commie using (often fake) concern for the environment but only when it pits them against their favored enemies.
Browser
13hr ago
I've literally never heard of this interpretation as a fairly lively culture war reader. Either Palestinian watermelon emojis or 'black people like watermelon' feel overwhelmingly more likely
Fellow former liberal here. I also would had been offended by those chats 10 or 15 years ago. These days, I just shrug. When the left wing stopped being about tolerance and acceptance and started being about finding a new group of people to hate (e.g. how the illiberal left hates men who date in other countries[1]) I became a lot more jaded, cynical, and apolitical.
[1] I have a lot of real world female platonic friends, and they all universally support me living in another country and dating women there. The only people in the real world who at all opposed me dating in another country are both men: One straight man and one gay man.
quiet_NaN
13hr ago
Opposition to women’s suffrage is common.
That is not very reassuring, actually. It is also a platform which is widely unpopular. I guess that >90% of the women will oppose it, along a majority of men. The only way I see women losing the franchise is along with everyone else.
I mostly agree in theory, but as far as I can see, this being applied in a rather one-sided manner has serious real-world consequences that can't be overlooked. In many parliamentary democracies, the moderate right refuses to work with the far-right, while the moderate left happily works together with the far-left, which means there is a strong bias in favor of the far-left of getting their. Germany is the most extreme example here, as the moderate right as boxed itself into a corner of now only being able to coalition with left-wing parties. Only a fool would think this has no practical impact on politics, and indeed, the CDU was forced to put extremely stupid far-left green current-day demands into the german constitution just to avoid working together with the far-right.
The same happens with violent protests ; Several dozen organized, masked left-wing extremists can storm a moderate right (CDU) office, threaten staff and trash furniture and it will not even go into political violence stats since it gets recorded as a "protest". The moderate politician has to fear violent altercations with the left if he speaks or votes the wrong way. Again, this has practical impacts on political outcomes.
The same, again, in science, my own field of employment; Far-left activist-scholars (their own moniker!) get to openly admit that they consider their political views as more important than there scientific integrity, can openly involve themselves in blatant witch hunts, and there will be not only no repercussions, but they will be, if anything, rewarded with government money. On the other hand, a politically unaffiliated researcher who gets unfortunate results (by left-wing views, that is) in a study but stands by them due to the methodological strength of the design risks his whole career, and other moderate scientists around him are pressured to denounce him as far-right lest they get the same fate. That this is possible is a direct result of genuine right-wingers having been stringently excluded much earlier - not only would they have the moderate's back on this topic, it also means that the demand for right-wing extremism exceeds supply, so you have to start to cancel moderates to keep the far-left happy.
And I can only repeat it, I don't even consider myself right-wing. All I want is being able to do independent research(in my employment) or common-sense governance (in politics), and the far-left is fucking scary, has actual positions of power and can openly do what it wants with little fear of reprisal. The far-right is a bunch of truckers or anons that have to keep their head down lest it gets chopped.
This is the reason why Trump got elected, and why the Afd in germany is literally the largest party.
stuckinbathroom
13hr ago
debased
Heh.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
Yeah, I think I was all over the place. The "purge the crazies" bit applied to past conversations that got me here. I wasn't sure how much the YR situation applied originally, but now it seems pretty clear to be humor.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
13hr ago
Congratulations! May you be an example for us all!
I do find it funny/trendy when people label "eating a late breakfast" as intermittent fasting.
WandererintheWilderness
13hr ago
Are you saying no taxpayer funding is involved in declaring National Penguin Day, or are you claiming that taxes aren't collected by threat of violence
I believe he's claiming that "Penguin Day">"paid government bureaucrats">"taxes">"violence" is too many degrees removed to meaningfully equate one end of the chain with the other - the sense in which Penguin Day 'involves' implicit violence is so abstract as to be meaningless in any everyday sense of the wod 'violence'. Compare "Starbucks">"cheap imported coffee beans">"Western economic supremacy">"legacy of colonization" as supposed proof that having coffee makes someone complicit in the evils of 18th century colonialism.
WandererintheWilderness
14hr ago
Oh, if you don't believe that the shitposters in this particular case are evidencing any evil beliefs, or potential for harm, as you would recognize them in moral terms, then that answers that. I understood your talk of "coming together to (…) forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side" as applying to 'crazies' who you would find morally reprehensible by your own standards, as much as a sincere principled leftist might find assassination-supporting accelerationists or an indiscriminate cancel-mob morally reprehensible. I hadn't understood it as a question of 'aesthetics' at all. It is in that framework that I was arguing that you should still deal with the evil extremists on your own side even if the opposite side isn't repressing its own. If you agree with this principle, but simply don't think it applies to the YR chatlogs then we have no real disagreement and I'd simply misunderstood you.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
14hr ago
I think you underestimate the amount of domestic terrorism that is either not strategic at all, or seems to have the purpose of sending a message like "it's not worth the trouble to keep oppressing my allies". The latter must be the case for instances of religious and ethnic domestic terrorism - surely the PKK or ETA didn't think that the Turks or Spanish actually wish for them to have more rights and must just be awakened to the fact.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
I can understand going out of my way to police the shitposters on my side when the two sides have roughly the same values, mutual respect for one another, and are committed to having a rational conversation. In that case this sort of policing of my side to conduct itself in a way that is not offensive to you reaffirms our mutual respect, serves as tangible evidence that our values are mostly aligned, and helps ensure that the rational dialogue continues. But when:
- These gestures are not reciprocated
- When they are offeres by my side unilaterally, they are not interpreted as proof our values are aligned
- Rational dialogue is not only not happening, any attempt for my side to engage in it is met with coordinated efforts to shut it off
- It's not even clear whether anyone is actually offended by any of this, or if it's just a cynical ploy to disrupt coordination on my side
Why should I work to make my side conform to your aesthetics? This has nothing to do with morality, your aesthetics are not morals.
TowardsPanna
14hr ago
I wasn't the one asked, but... We've got at least two of them right here on the forum. SS being a good example of a modern Nazi. He thinks the Holocaust was a good thing (while also denying its scale).
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
14hr ago
· Edited 14hr ago
By "all Charlie Kirks", I meant outspoken relatively extreme right-wingers, not the set consisting of just Charlie Kirk. Otherwise it would make no sense that posters here (who are presumably not his reincarnation) would feel personally threatened by the rhetoric.
Shooting Charlie Kirk was at most a small step towards a hypothetical end goal of shooting so many of the most outspoken right-wingers that even some Motte posters make the cut. My impression is that, in the Left's eyes, the Right has already gone relatively further towards a hypothetical goal of installing Mecha-Hitler - after all, they have installed a norm-breaking nativist president with a significant cult of personality who removes ethnic outsiders and openly defies mechanisms that are meant to prevent concentration of power in the system.
I don't know that I would. But I think that's kind of not my point. My point is more that I saw the reasoning as being, "Look at these people, having an Ethics and Politics; that's Christian!" (Yes, that's a simplified caricature.) I don't think that qualifies it as being a "Christian heretical sect".
In general, I should probably make an effort post on what it would be to be a "______ heretical sect". Tentatively, I would expect that one would find some folks in that sect writing within the context of the tradition that they are being heretical from. I think it likely that you would find them claiming that what they are doing is that tradition, while others in that tradition are saying that their work is actually heretical. I highly doubt that if we go look at the folks who developed the frameworks for wokism and the like, we will find them writing, "Jesus Christ is our Lord; we are doing our best to follow Him as we find guidance in the bible. Here are the parts of the bible that support our woke doctrines and guide our sect."
There may be other ways to argue that folks are a "______ heretical sect"; thus the need for a larger effortpost. But that would be, I think, the top-tier type of evidence.
I think you put a lot of stock in the universalist axis, and I don't think it's that load-bearing. Again, it's a bit of a superficial relation. Not quite "Hitler was a vegetarian", but yeah, I think we can find a range of views on the universalist axis across all sorts of traditions.
Oh boy. This one takes a whole lot more actual theology, but I'm not really sure how it's germane to the question at hand of the provenance of wokism.
This is a within-atheists fight between sects, which I wrote about:
More options
Context Copy link