domain:infonomena.substack.com
Stellula
16m ago
I really wish you and the person below you would just link to the part of the speech you are talking about.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
18m ago
I composed this before Hegseth gave his "war crimes are badass" speech, though I'd argue it vindicates my remark about "warrior ethos" posturing. In practical terms, it is an ethos that glamorizes brutality as an expression of strength and doesn't appear to give much thought to the use of the military as a political tool beyond "kill people until they do what we say" (an approach which has a decidedly mixed record). Thus you end up getting arguments like "we failed in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan because we weren't brutal enough" when the reality is that these efforts stumbled because the US didn't have a real plan for victory (and in the meantime we killed a lot of civilians). It's not quite a stab-in-the-back myth, but it's the same flavor of copium over the failure of pure force.
At least for now the military is limited to blowing up narco boats
*alleged narco boats
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
25m ago
AGI Was Never Going To Kill Us Because Suicide Happens At The End of Doomscrolling
I'll go ahead and call this the peak of AI version one-dot-oh
The headline reads "OpenAI Is Preparing to Launch a Social App for AI-Generated Videos." People will, I guess, be able to share AI generated videos with their friends (and who doesn't have THE ALGO as a friend). Awesome. This is also on the heels of the introduction of live ads within OpenAI's ChatGPT.
Some of us were waiting for The Matrix. I know I've always wanted to learn Kung Fu. Others were sharpening our pointing sticks so that when the paperclip machine came, we'd be ready. Most of us just want to look forward to spending a quiet evening with AI Waifu before we initiate her kink.exe module.
But we'll never get there. Because Silicon Valley just can't help itself. Hockey sticks and rocketships. Series E-F-G. If I can just get 5 million more Americans addicted to my app, I can buy a new yacht made completely out of bitcoin.
I am a daily "AI" user and I still have very high hopes. My current operating theory is that a combination of whatever the MCP protocol eventually settles into plus agents trading some sort of crypto or stable coin will create a kind of autonomous, goal-seek driven economy. It will be sandboxed but with (semi) real money. I don't think we, humans, will use it to actually drive the global economy, but as a kind of just-over-the-horizon global prediction market. Think of it as a way for us to have seen 2008 coming in 2006. I also was looking forward to a team of maybe 10 people making a legit billion dollar company and this paving the way for groups of 3 - 5 friends running thousands of $10 + $50 million dollar companies. No more corporate grind if you're willing to take a little risk and team up with some people you work well with. No bullshit VC games - just ship the damn thing.
And I think these things are still possible, but I also, now, think the pure consumer backlash to this silicon valley lobotomy of AI could be very much Dot-Com-2-point-O. The normies at my watering hole are making jokes about AI slop. Instead of "lol I doomscrolled into 3 am again" people are swapping stories about popping in old DVDs so that they can escape the ads and the subscription fatigue.
Culturally, this could be great. Maybe the damn kids will go outside and touch some grass. In terms of advancing the frontier of human-digital knowledge, it seems like we're going to trade it in early not even for unlimited weird porn, but for pink haired anime cat videos that my aunt likes.
BahRamYou
39m ago
So, does God wait for the Mormons to elect their president and then start sending him messages? Or does he privately message someone first and then that guy uses his secret divine knowledge to become president? Either way seems a little suspicious to me, but then I'm just a dirty heathen.
ChestertonsMeme
blocking the federal fist
50m ago
I don't think you can separate the things that were grandfathered in from the current good state we find ourselves in. Alcohol is useful for proving trustworthiness within a group. We might never have gotten out of small-scale tribalism without its influence. Guns were a necessary tool for breaking the old social order of kings and nobility. The countries where guns are rare have at least a vibe that no one could ever upset the established order. In America there are times when states, and even smaller groups, defy the federal government using force. The threat of such defiance limits the extent to which the establishment boot can stomp on human faces before it is stopped by force.
TeknOShEeP
50m ago
There are rules of engagement that are to ensure a country does not win the tactical battle and thereby lose the propaganda war (see Vietnam, and being currently attempted by Israel in Gaza).
And then there are rules of engagement that are simply ass-covering for the REMFs who ordered the operation to begin with (see Afghanistan, Iraq).
And finally, there are rules of engagement for powers who follow Machiavelli's advice to kings (see all sides of WWII, the Mongols under Ghenghis and Kublai Khan, and Rome at its peak).
War is a terrible thing. The modern ideal is that it is to be "civilized" by more humanitarian rules of engagement, but I'm not sure this is true. What I am sure is true is that the current blend of caregory 1 and 2 RoEs used by the US manages to be about the worst of all possible worlds.
OliveTapenade
53m ago
Er, are you advocating that the US should only do nothing or destroy its enemies utterly? And if the standard for utter destruction is astronomically high, doesn't that imply that most of the time the US should do nothing?
It seems to me that the United States needs to be able to exercise a wide range of levels of military force in order to compel its enemies, including both the extremely high (destroying civilisations with the power of suns) and the moderate to low. As in Starship Troopers:
“Something still troubling you? Speak up. That’s what I’m here for, to answer your questions.”
“Uh, yes, sir. You said the sentry didn’t have any H-bomb. But he does have an H-bomb; that’s just the point. Well, at least we have, if we’re the sentry… and any sentry we’re up against is likely to have them, too. I don’t mean the sentry, I mean the side he’s on.”
“I understood you.”
“Well… you see, sir? If we can use an H-bomb—and, as you said, it’s no checker game; it’s real, it’s war and nobody is fooling around—isn’t it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed… and even losing the war… when you’ve got a real weapon you can use to win? What’s the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?”
Zim didn’t answer at once, which wasn’t like him at all. Then he said softly, “Are you happy in the Infantry, Hendrick? You can resign, you know.”
Hendrick muttered something; Zim said, “Speak up!”
“I’m not itching to resign, sir. I’m going to sweat out my term.”
“I see. Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn’t really qualified to answer… and one that you shouldn’t ask me. You’re supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?”
“What? Sure—yes, sir.”
“Then you’ve heard the answer. But I’ll give you my own—unofficial—views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?”
“Why… no, sir!”
“Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him… but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing… but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say—supply the control. Which is as it should be. That’s the best answer I can give you. If it doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can’t convince you—then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
Is any level of force short of complete annihilation 'half ass shit'? Do we need to either cut the baby's head off, or let the baby act out for as long as it likes?
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
57m ago
Where else? I suppose Australia technically has dangerous wild animals in great variety, but guns are tightly controlled there.
While this is strictly speaking true it is slightly (and inadvertently misleading). Australia's most dangerous animals are not ones that you can stop with a gun - an assault rifle will do nothing to stop you from being bitten by a funnel web spider that had moved into your shoe, a perfectly camouflaged snake that you stepped on or a small, transparent jellyfish floating 30 metres away from you. People in rural areas still use them and don't have much difficulty getting them.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
1hr ago
No I understood the reference, and I disagree with your take on Christianity. The point of Christianity is to become like God. "God became man so that man could become God."
While an obsessive focus on compassion for the weak and wretched is indeed an outgrowth of Christianity, I personally see it as a cancerous and false one, as many educated and thinking Christians do nowadays.
OliveTapenade
1hr ago
What is the utility of the creeds if not to define who is Christian? Again, that is what they are for. They were created for that specific purpose - to clearly mark orthodox Christians apart from heretics. You could, I suppose, take one of two views. You could suggest that this purpose is laudable but the actually-existing creeds do it wrongly, and instead lock in heresy or error. (I understand this to be the historical Mormon position.) The creeds are in the wrong place or cement the wrong views. Alternatively, you could suggest that this whole endeavour is a mistake. That seems like it would have pretty big implications to me - should Christians not seek to delineate Christianity from heresy?
I interpret your position to be that a basic, perhaps creedal, definition of Christianity is reasonable, but that the actually-existing creeds are too narrow. Perhaps a more minimal creed, one that encompasses not only Nicene orthodoxy but even the likes of Arianism or perhaps even some Gnostic belief systems, would have been better, in your view?
As regards Mormon beliefs - well, I would say that the early church seems to have believed that Christ being one in substance with the Father was a core part of Christianity. They believed that enough to put it into the creeds, and to exclude people who denied it. Presumably you take the view that they were wrong, and you can do that, but I don't think it's absurd or uncharitable of me to suggest that, by doing so, you have removed yourself from community with the people who believed that.
As a final note:
in the end what it boils down to is that you believe God will damn me and my family for eternity because, while we accept his divinity and worship him, and accept his Son as our Savior, we don't have the nature of the relationship between them quite right, and unlike others with those same misunderstandings we're not part of a creedal Christian community. Does this not strike you as obviously wrong?
I previously said, twice, that I don't think that Christianity is coextensive with the community of the saved. "You are not Christian" does not mean "you are damned to hell for eternity". I also said "I don't claim that no Mormons are saved or anything like that".
Personally I consider it usually inappropriate to speculate on who is saved or not saved. That is a matter for God. What I do in life is hope for the salvation of all peoples - as in the Nunc Dimittis: "for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared for all nations". That is the part given to me.
I therefore, at least, knowing that God desires to save everyone, hope for the salvation of all who earnestly seek God, and who show proof of that desire in their love of neighbour. This does, for what it's worth, put me in company with the Catholics, who teach (para. 15-16, and at more length here) that though all salvation comes from God through Christ, this is possible for those of other religions. If I have given you reason in this conversation to think that I don't sincerely hope for your salvation as well, then I apologise.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1hr ago
You’re not going to get attacked by a grizzly in a suburb either, you’d have to be way off the beaten track.
Grizzlies no, black bears maybe.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Dingos and saltwater crocs are technically dangerous to people, are they not? No bears, snakes and monitor lizards avoid people, no big cats. I suppose guns are pretty useless against saltwater crocodiles in general but still.
You’re not going to get attacked by a grizzly in a suburb either, you’d have to be way off the beaten track.
aldomilyar
1hr ago
Where else? I suppose Australia technically has dangerous wild animals in great variety, but guns are tightly controlled there.
Vast majority of Australian wild animals are only really going to cause you issues if you step on them or you're pretty far off the beaten track.
erwgv3g34
1hr ago
...it's literally just breaded fish with French fries. How can one claim credit for coming up with that?
Grant_us_eyes
1hr ago
I'm surprised they haven't taken a page out of Alaskan bush hunters and use 357 revolvers or whatever Glock is chambered for 10mm.
Grant_us_eyes
1hr ago
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1hr ago
This seems likely. Hegseth is the guy who had to edit his Deus Vult sleeve tattoo with the subtitle kafir, in Arabic. Blacks having to shave isn’t a deal breaker which prevents their enrollment, but shaving will prevent Muslims from joining the military.
Tenaz
2hr ago
I just don't think the creeds are a good basis for defining Christianity. Most Christians do not understand the creeds; many who think they do actually believe in one heresy or another. I say they're still Christian. "Ask him, he knows" is a pretty good start to justifying why these people may remain Christian, but I say extend that further to God himself. God's nature, his physical characteristics, the precise meaning of the term "omnipotence", are not all that important to me compared to other aspects of God. If you asked me what Jesus' resurrected body were made of I'd say "pray to him, he knows."
Someone with this attitude and an extremely primitive idea of who Christ is is still Christian. Thus the thief on the cross is Christian even if he hasn't yet found a church, even if he's been an atheist for 40 years and just stepped foot into an LDS church for the first time because it was the closest to his house. Thus LDS people are Christian even if our doctrine is wholly incompatible with the creeds, because the creeds are not actually the authority regarding the definition of "Christian."
"Christians believe X, Mormons believe Y, and these are not compatible" is itself not incompatible with Mormons being Christians. There are doctrinal disagreements that are not heresies, there are heresies that do not exclude one from Christianity. The question is how big of a disagreement is big enough. We believe all the core things about Christ--we believe he is divine, he is God, he performed the atonement for us, his teachings are correct, he is the only way we can be justified and saved. The only thing we don't believe is that he's consubstantial in essence with the Father. I just don't think this last thing is a core part of Christianity. If it were, if creedalists were to be trusted that this question is so important that getting it right is vital to salvation, I think he simply would have been clearer about that in his sermons. All of that hogwash about grace and charity and the sermon on the mount is of no importance at all compared to ensuring everyone knows the nature of the Trinity, since a proper understanding of grace is not necessary for salvation, but a proper understanding of the Trinity apparently is.
We can keep discussing very esoteric principles and fine-tuning our definitions of belief systems vs. believers vs. believing communities, but in the end what it boils down to is that you believe God will damn me and my family for eternity because, while we accept his divinity and worship him, and accept his Son as our Savior, we don't have the nature of the relationship between them quite right, and unlike others with those same misunderstandings we're not part of a creedal Christian community. Does this not strike you as obviously wrong?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
Sure, just dial up their direct hotline to god whenever they need an update on current political issues, that makes sense...
I mean, yes? If you think God is real, God has the ability to send messages, and God wants certain things of humanity, then it's pretty logical for God to send such messages whenever humans get confused about what he said. Judaism has plenty of prophets doing this, and pagans typically had oracles.
The overly-convenient nature of the Mormons' updates certainly doesn't gel very well with claims that their hotline is plugged into something eternal, but the notion of having a hotline to the divine is really a pretty-logical extension of Actually Believing In Gods.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2hr ago
That just means you buy everything with cash and only trust a few big merchants like Amazon with your debit card information.
I buy stuff that isn't available on Amazon. Some of those merchants apparently haven't had the best security practices. With credit cards... that's between the issuer and the merchant, all I have to do is tell the issuer that I didn't make the charges.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2hr ago
Bold of you to think that I had the cash on hand at the time to just buy a car off-hand.
I assumed it from the complaint. Usually when people complain about credit scores being required it's for something they think isn't relevant, like employment or rent (which is usually paid in advance, not arrears) or indeed buying something with cash. Needing a credit score to get a car loan seems pretty reasonable.
EvanTh
2hr ago
You hear stories all the time of people having to put essential home repairs like a water heater or an HVAC system on a credit card because that's all they had. And yet, I have literally never heard that story end with "And then next month I scrounged up the money to pay it off".
That's because if we do, it's a nonissue and not something we talk about.
Last year, my car needed some repairs. As I tell the story, I paid for them - with some grumbles, but I paid it.
To tell it with some more detail... I didn't have a lot of money in my checking account at the time. But that was a nonissue: I just put the repairs on my credit card, and then a few weeks later I transferred enough money to my checking account to pay off the bill when it came due. So a credit card was rather handy then. Except I don't tell that part of the story, because it was rather a nonissue in my life.
I agree rules of engagement are for pussies. The United States should stop with this half ass shit. The US can destroy civilizations with the power of suns. If the US decides that you are deserving of its wrath there is no resistance, there is capitulation or everyone dies. Of course, the standard for such attention should be astronomically high.
Grant_us_eyes
2hr ago
Realistically, I can't complain. Like you, I pay off my credit card every month, and in an emergency, I've built up a disturbingly large line of credit I could use to buy a great deal many things should a serious need arise.
Given that I get cash back on purchases, said company is basically paying me to use their card.
But, y'know... I wouldn't really cry if I had to give it up. Yeah. I could make that sacrifice. Easy.
The US has a lot of concerns where total annihilation would be wildly excessive and counterproductive. Obliterating Somalia because some enterprising fishermen decided to moonlight as pirates would be silly on top of appalling. It's a level of deranged collective punishment that would instantly turn the rest of the world against the US because nobody is sure when we're going to make an absurd demand at nukepoint. And it wouldn't even work, because the strategy immediately fails against any sort of decentralized opponent.
Doing nothing is comparatively reasonable, but still suboptimal, since having your shipping go unmolested is kind of a big deal.
More options
Context Copy link