There is a lot to cover and almost all of it is well hidden. Biggest culprits being the Ocean and dense unreachable forests.. Also there is the constant of change/time which has erased the vast majority of the past.
CFPB needs to be burned to the ground. How tf is this even constitutionally legal?
It doesn't matter what your political leanings are or what you think about the matter at hand. No agency should have the much power to be the judge jury and executioner. Oh and also to just write laws at a whim.
This is really not cool. I have no idea how anybody who calls them selves an American can be cool with this.
The elephant in the room is the modern collectivist initiative of college/higher education for the common man. I don't how people don't see it, especially the HN crowd..
This article is shows only one of the smaller downstream consequences, it gets much worse. We are talking an entire generation indebted by trillions, entire areas of the economy with staff shortages, "highly credentialed" people working unrelated jobs etc etc
Colleges we always meant to a niche entity. Huge inequalities were not just optional downsides, rather they were structurally essential. Most people shouldn't go to college, most phds and professorhips shouldn't exist and most colleges shouldnt..
This is not a luddite take, i think these things actually should 100x but not like the way it is right now. The issue is socialism.
Government/non-profit funded high education should only be afforded to a very small subset of the population. The gifted.
Everything else should be private and amongst them most should be treated like trades/apprenticeship.
These ideas seem radical/ridiculous but most of what we think of high education these days are a consequences of extremely silly post WWII socialist policies.
I don't even have a massive problem with government funding either, this can be effective but not socalism, nothing like what we have now. More like military research during the WWWII and the early period of the cold war.
I don't think what uou are describing is socialism. You are talking about a market economy where organisations take risks in giving people loans for education.
Your alternative (restricting the supply of higher education) based on central planning sounds remarkably like the Soviet model.
Thats the thing, there is no risk. No free market entity is going to write off tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on pretty much most 18 year olds.
Its almost entirely backed by the government in most western nations aka socialism.
In my alternative, we will eliminate government assistance for higher education almost entirely with the exception of highly gifted. Yes this is central planning but it is almost nothing compared to the monstrocity we have today.
I guess the point is not some libertarian utopia, but rather to eliminate any and all institutions and mechanisms that fulfil this post WWII socialist idea of corrective redistribution.
We don't need to get into why this concept is deeply flawed both morally and structurally but if the following truths are reasonable:
- Not everybody is equal in terms of value output, importance to society and value deserved.
- The most important civilisation sustaining things exist at the tail end of distributions.
- As such these things should be held extremely high in society relative to everything else.
Then we can take these truths to make claims like "the CEO wallmart is worth more than thousands of employees combined" because the difference between a good CEO vs exceptional CEO is billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs (throughout the economy).. let alone a bad CEO.
In the same way, we can say the difference between a gifted person going deep into english literature vs the average person is massive. Does it really make sense for society to back the average person on this venture? Does it make sense for the person?
Without societies backing, it would've been nearly impossible for the average person to go into this world.
The key is average here, I'm incorrectly using the word. The lady in the article is clearly not average but is she exceptional? NOPE.
Why does her role exist, why are the such courses in such third their colleges? what happens to the students..
"recorded history".. glacial maximums and minimums..
Also would be very helpful to look at the worst case predictions and what that would entail hundred years down the line.
Its not cool but it really not that bad. Definitely not apocalyptic.
Its also worth it to consider whats the alternative because every version of an alternative is exponentially worse (communism and/or luddite primitive feudalism).
Interesting read. The underlying point here is what many of us have been saying since the beginning of the conflict.
Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.
A small window of opportunity opened up just after covid. Russia got a chance to make its last stand against the rapid decline of its sphere of influence and sovereignty.
Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia. Being surrounded by Nato on side and China on the other whilst rapidly declining as a nation (economy, birth rates, military etc etc) is really not good.
>Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia.
I, being Russian, can not understand how is that an existential threat to a country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has insane amount of natural resources, and enjoys a virtually exclusive access to the best demographic reservoir in the world (except for Haredim, but it's not like they're planning to move anywhere, so yeah, the best one actually).
Over the span of three decades your nation went from being a global superpower with immense economic, political and military power to a rapid declining shell of its former self.
Your economy is more comparable to an American state like Florida than a powerful country. You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members. You capability to exert military power outside of your own borders have been effectively disabled having being surrounded by NATO and with a heavily depleted military.
All of this combined with the natural resources and land you mentioned is exactly why its open season on Russia to be carved up by actors with higher economic, military and political power.
If I was in your shoes, I would either give up and move or do anything and everything I can to improve the odds of the terrible hand your nation has been given..
>global superpower with immense economic, political and military power
I seen it from inside - you've bought into a Potemkin's village.
When it was a "global superpower" (on paper) it was a much, much worse country by any measure.
>You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members.
When the war has started that's exactly where I moved to. Turns out you're very wrong about it (didn't know it myself)
Btw going to back to my op, this is exactly what Putin has been doing by working on hypersonic missiles. Taking Crimea. Trying to forcefully bring Ukraine back to Russia's sphere of influence.. etc
I'm not saying I condone his actions. I'm saying his actions are rational and strategic.
Putins choices were either leave a legacy of a slowly declining Russian federation until there isn't one or make massive gambits like this reverse Russias fortune.
The thing is, such gambits carries the risk of accelerating the current fate..
If I was ever put in a similar situation, my god I pray to have the balls and conviction to pull the trigger on such moves. It would be so much easier to just put up the appearances of normalcy by moving the chairs of the titanic while it sinks..
He has plenty of other choices, actually. Even now.
It's just that they involve some combination of letting go of his expansionist fantasies, relaxing his absolute grip on power, or watering-down his so-called legacy. So of course he won't pursue them.
That's a good question to think about actually. I don't think they handled it the way Russia is handling it now (assuming that this is in fact what's happening with Russia).
Actually the big European powers gave up their empires fairly quietly. Yes they sometimes fought wars to keep them on a case by case basis, but I don't think any of them launched large scale campaigns of invasion as a response.
I am sorry but Ireland, Kenya, the Malayan emergency, the Indian mutiny, the Vietnam war, Portugal’s wars, Algeria, Suez, Spain from 1820s+…
I would not call any of that quiet. And Suez was definitely an invasion.
Hell, US hegemony was challenged by Al-Qaeda and they invaded Iraq.
Russia is different in that rather than being a seaborne empire they were a land based empire. The Austro-Hungarians invaded Serbia when their Balkan ambitions were looking like being thwarted.
There were also significantly counter-culture movements against anti-imperialism similar to the russian anti-woke-culture war (after all it discredits imperialism) and thus dissolves the russian empire if looked at through this lense. They were just discredited after hitler dialed imperialism up to eleven.
The British empire peacefully transferred power to their descendents/cousins, this is a success story. Speaking english. Christian. Shared ancestry.
Besides, we are not talking about breaking up the empire. That already happened with the dissolution of the USSR. We are talking about the extinction of a nation.
It would be like if the UK was split into Scotland, a puppet of the EU. Wales, a quasi independant state with strong ties to Scotland. England, a former power center. Finally Ireland becomes whole.
Do you really think the brits will be cool with this, especially if lets say Russia/China was working behind the scenes to make it happen and the so called ally EU was all too happy to gain all this new power and influence...
The article's analysis focuses on a rivalry between Russia and Poland. At least in my book, being stuck on a rivalry to the point of your own destruction is the exact opposite of "clearly rational" and having "a high level of sophistication".
If Poland has gained this newfound strength by shoring up its western border through cooperation and trade, and Putin is worried about Ukraine just being able to do so as well, it begs the question of why Russia could not have done the exact same thing. And well it probably could have, if not for its wealth being squandered on a kleptocracy as touched in a few sibling comments. The resource curse strikes again.
Putin tried to do that at the beginning of his presidency. He was talking a lot about joining NATO and even EU, but that didn’t go anywhere. Russia is much more valuable to the EU as a fossil colony.
The largest, most resource-rich, nuclear-protected country in the world with the decent education cannot advance without raping its neighbors, because checks notes neighbors wanted to trade fossils with it?
Russia has demographic problems. They still have fewer citizens than in 1989.
Russia’s economy was thoroughly fucked by the collapse of the USSR.
Putin’s campaigns in Ukraine have been barbaric and I don’t pretend to understand the logic but Russia’s natural resources cannot make up for their problems.
Ultimately neither will imperial expansion. They are not solving their problems, they just loot weaker neighbors and blame everyone but themselves. In reality Russia got maybe the best hand on this planet, so they definitely as a society could choose a path to prosperity instead of replaying medieval conquests, squandering whatever demographics they have left. Stolen Ukrainian kids are also a limited resource after all, when they run out, what will Russians do?
Right, but like the article says, in Poland westernisation was set as a return to Europe. “Europe” has for centuries defined itself against Russia. The last time Russia looked to the west, rather than inwards, they got shock therapy.
Beyond that Russia’s hand is so good because of the very imperialism we are all decrying.
You’re arguing that the Russian body politic should shrug off its distinct characteristics and submit to the west.
Hard to see any of that happening with anything short of revolution.
If Russians don't see that their ways ultimately lead to nowhere, it does not mean that others should accept Russian logic as rational. It is logical, but axioms the system is built upon are garbage.
Many people don't seem to realize how existential this is for Russia
What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it.
Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything like this? In fact, Europe and the rest of the world was trading with them just fine. All we hear about on here was how Germany is completely dependent on Russia.
The truth is, countries side with NATO for a reason, because they have something to offer. If Russia had something better to offer, was trustworthy and Putin supported democracy, maybe less countries would be interested in partnering with the west and happy to form stronger ties with the autocracy. It doesn't mean anyone was about to invade Russia though.
No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.
You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.
If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?
And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.
Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.
and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.
1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.
2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.
> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin.
Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.
When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".
> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.
Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.
> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.
Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.
Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.
I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.
So if a more radical nationalist imperialist than Putin were to win open free elections, do you think NATO would be happy?
Not to mention, by all accounts, Putin would probably win fully free elections even today. The opponents he's suppressing or killing are not extremely popular today, they are people who he fears might become popular if left unchecked.
Well, NATO is a defensive alliance and so not too worried if no one is invading anyone. But I think if Russia had a normal democratic situation with freeish press and lack of jailing or killing opponents they would be unlikely to continue the present kind of war which is a terrible deal for ordinary Russians. I remember the faces of the other Russians in the room when Putin announced the invasion and everyone looked horrified but scared to say anything.
It is not existential for Russia, it's just yet another barely consistent concept Russian apologists are throwing around in hope it sticks. I vividly remember how there were dozens of comments on this website defending the lunatic conspiracy theory about "NATO biolabs below Azovstal" during week 3 of the invasion, so HN is just another social media "zone" which Russians and their Western sympathizers try to "flood with shit", quoting one of their ideologues.
> Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.
Nothing rational or sophisticated about trying to build a 19th century style land empire in the 21st century. The mindless quest for a sphere of influence is madness in our modern word, something that can only come from the mind of a crazy megalomaniac who thinks of sovereignty not in regards to modern borders, but in regards to a historic empire of his dreams. He believes Ukraine (and Belorussia, and Georgia, ...) are part of Russia, so anytime one of those stops playing the part (stop being a puppet/satellite) he invades (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022).
the reason their economy, birth rates, and military go into the toilet is because of their shitty rulers stole the money and spent it on whores and cocaine instead of education and infrastructure, not because they lost territory or sovereignty or any of this shit. if putin was rational and sophisticated his country would not be flushing itself down the toilet.
russia used to be a mathematical, scientific, technological pioneer, also with major contributions to humanities, literature, and the arts. they kicked all those people out of the country for being un-macho nerds and now they have redneck oil idiots running the place and brainwashing the uneducated rural population into dying by the 100,000 alongside rapists and murderers in human wave attacks into an innocent country that never attacked them.
Navalny has always maintained that Crimea should be part of Russia, as did Yeltsin, so there goes your theory that the cause of the war is the idea that Putin is an especially bad leader.
Claiming? That's talk. Taking it then allows indeed begs pushback that need not recognize any normality or consistency in any russian claims. Russia also decided Ukraine should be its own country then changed their mind. So ... so much for that
Climate Change: Energy != climate change. Even if it entirely did, using it as an argument without including the benefits is to put it politely (i dont want to) is very silly. AGI (if possible) will solve climate.
Economic Resources: Again talking about the costs without the benefits is extremely disenginous, especially since this authour believes in ASI
Human Intellectual Capital: Barring some exceptions, IP laws are extremely outdated and wont last for long regardless of whether Sam venture succeeds or not. Also blacksmiths making horseshoes..
Negative Extranalities: This is where having some liberties to go outside of the HN guidelines would be extremely appropriate. Progress comes with risks but the alternative is the end of civilisation. Probably just the west and not humanity since China, Middle East, India etc have not been ...
Every major problem facing humanity can be solved given enough time, intelligence and creativity. If we had a technology than can accelerate these things, it would be illogical and immoral to not bet big on it.
When I say everything I mean everything from cancer, genetic diseases, famine, drought to climate change, poverty, prosperity etc etc. This not some utopian religious claim either. Everything I've listed is solvable, we have the equations and we've already made so much progress that we know it is just a matter of x. Whether x is time, intelligence or creativity. or all of the above..
To sum it up, the author and his kin are clearly driven by quasi collectivist luddite ideology/moral_framework. It is such a shame that HNs guidelines won't allow me to appropriatly describe the author.
This is true but the thing is, it can take a decade of two for the free market to do its thing.
Its really hard to break network effects, especially at Apples scale.
If it was just gonna end with a minor gatekeeping fee, I can see myself (and other) just biting the bullet but history suggests that this is just the beginning of a massive descent.
Descent of the free market - no, this is how it's supposed to work.
Monopolies can be good for a short while for the economy, although they always go sour after a while.
Standard Oil provided clean(er) and safe(r) lighting and fuel for millions around the world, developing ultra efficient refining and distribution techniques. They even saved the whales by accident.
M$ was much-reviled in the 90's, but their PC monopoly helped establish a standard for computing, which almost certainly contributed positively to the rapid development of hardware and the internet in that time.
The same is true for the iPhone ecosystem and the large-country-sized app economy it spawned.
But if Apple doesn't keep innovating (truly new products, not just newer phones and iOS'es), no amount of monopolistic action will keep them afloat and in fact would probably hasten their decline. These big corpo's become the victims of the economic and technical progress they create.
Microsoft did the exact same thing and it took them the better part of almost two decades to undo the damage.
The difference here is the entire map has shifted. Tech is no longer just a niche or a B2B thing. Pretty much everyone in the western world is a stakeholder and they chose piss us all off.
This is not gonna end well for Apple. Such a short sighted move by the leadership that has me doubting their leadership.
The alternative is to take the L and turn it into a win.
Being forced to open up by both the EU and homefront is more than enough a mandate for Tim and the rest of the leadership to make the transition without any trouble from shareholders.
They can use this to really open up the platform and solidify their marketshare.
Now instead you have every major player that doesn't already have its own distribution (Meta, AMZN, NFLX) looking for the exists.
As a side note, this is why I think Zuckerberg burning tens of billions in AR/VR R&D was such a good move. It gave them a foothold in the next thing.
I'll be surprised if the rest of MANGA wont follow suit and double down after what Apple is doing.
There is a lot to cover and almost all of it is well hidden. Biggest culprits being the Ocean and dense unreachable forests.. Also there is the constant of change/time which has erased the vast majority of the past.