Ah yes, the reality of the genocide in Gaza has a liberal bias. That sounds accurate…

He is cunning to a tee.

“Hey let’s livestream me playing Path of Exile after saying I’m the best in the world, with uncensored live chat from thousands of pseudanonymous gamers with actual experience.”

He’s good at creating the illusion that he’s a genius on a subject for the duration of an informal conversation. Steering away from topics he doesn’t understand, forging signals of deep understanding by mimicking the speech patterns of an expert who struggles to put things in lay man’s terms while namedropping memorized keywords, etc.

If you look at Path of Exile and the Cybertruck, it’s clear that Elon doesn’t know when his promises are unrealistic in a way that will make him look like an idiot. I think he has handlers, not just at SpaceX but everywhere, and those handlers are the real talent. Those handlers know how to cultivate experts that are actually good at their jobs to quietly do the work that Elon takes credit for and how to coach them to make Elon feel good about this arrangement most of the time.

The Finns would like a word with you.

A divided congress representing a divided people? Say it ain’t so.

It’s ramping up, and the people attending aren’t to blame for it not ramping up faster.

It would be easier to have a satellite in orbit that fires a shotgun at them.

You would need some fancy orbital calculations and precise aiming to make sure the shotgun pellets actually intercept the mirrors, and it would take some engineering to make a shotgun that fires the pellets in a narrow enough cone at high enough velocity to be able to get on an intercept course with most satellites, but you could probably fit it on a Starlink-sized payload. The main issue would be bribing a launch provider to send it up there, but once it’s there you could direct it from the ground without it being traceable to you, and you could have it thrust randomly to dodge anti-satellite weaponry until it runs out of shells.

At some point this would create enough space debris that it could trigger Kessler syndrome, with the debris from destroyed satellites hitting other satellites faster than it de-orbits, until all satellites in low earth orbit are reduced to powder that falls down to earth over a couple of years.

Apart from bribing a launch provider to get the satellite up there, you could probably do either of these for under $10 million, most of it R&D. Much cheaper than developing your own surface-to-space missiles.

Presumption of innocence.

Also, a long history of the US government engaging in fraud and slander as an excuse to start wars, from the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin incident to the WMDs in Iraq.

Oh honey, that hasn’t been true since 2008.

The government will bail out companies that get too big to fail. So investors want to loan money to companies so that those companies become too big to fail, so that when those investors “collect on their debt with interest” the government pays them.

They funded Uber, which lost 33 billion dollars over the course of 7 years before ever turning a profit, but by driving taxi companies out of business and lobbying that public transit is unnecessary, they’re an unmissable part of society, so investors will get their dues.

They funded Elon Musk, whose companies are the primary means of communication between politicians and the public, a replacing NASA as the US government’s primary space launch provider for both civilian and military missions, and whose prestige got a bunch of governments to defund public transit to feed continued dependence on car companies. So investors will get their dues through military contracts and through being able to threaten politicians with a media blackout.

And so they fund AI, which they’re trying to have replace so many essential functions that society can’t run without it, and which muddies the waters of anonymous interaction to the point that people have no choice but to only rely on information that has been vetted by institutions - usually corporations like for-profit news.

The point of AI is not to make itself so desirable that people want to give AI companies money to have it in their life. The point of AI is to make people more dependent on AI and on other corporations that the AI company’s owners own.

They could stick to unpoisoned datasets for next token prediction by simply not including data collected after the public release of ChatGPT.

But the real progress they can make is that LLMs can be subjected to reinforcement learning, the same process that got superhuman results in Go, Starcraft, and other games. The difficulty is getting a training signal that can guide it past human-level performance.

And this is why they are pushing to include ChatGPT in everything. Every conversation is a datapoint that can be used to evaluate ChatGPT’s performance. This doesn’t get poisoned by the public adoption of AI because even if ChatGPT is speaking to an AI, the RL training algorithm evaluates ChatGPT’s behavior, treating the AI as just another possible thing-in-the-world it can interact with.

As AI chatbots proliferate, more and more opportunities arise for A/B testing - for example if two different AI chatbots write two different comments to the same reddit post, with the goal of getting the most upvotes. While it’s not quite the same as the billions of games playing against each other in a vacuum that made AlphaGo and AlphaStar better than humans, there is definitely opportunity for training data.

And at some point they could find a way to play AI against each other to reach greater heights, some test that is easy to evaluate despite being based on complicated next-token-prediction. They’ve got over a trillion dollars of funding and plenty of researchers doing their best, and I don’t see a physical reason why it couldn’t happen.

But beyond any theoretical explanation, there is the simple big-picture argument: for the past 10 years I’ve heard people say that AI could never do the next thing, with increasing desperation as AI swallows up more and more of the internet. They have all had reasons about as credible-sounding as yours. Sure it’s possible that at some point the nay-sayers will be right and the technology will taper off, but we don’t have the luxury of assuming we live in the easiest of all possible worlds.

It may be true that 3 years from now all digital communication is swallowed up by AI that we can’t distinguish from humans, that try to feed us information optimized to convert us to fascism on behalf of the AI’s fascist owners. It may be true that there will be mass-produced drones that are as good as maneuvering around obstacles and firing weapons as humans and these drones will be applied against anyone who resists the fascist order.

We may be only years away from resistance to fascism becoming impossible. We can bet that we have longer, but only if we get something that is worth the wait.

Historically, British Zionism has been fundamentally tied to English supremacism and antisemitism.

Essentially, Israel is the UK’s “not quite final solution” to the “problem” of Jews living in Britain - a place to dump all the Jews so England can be more ethnically pure.

This is public information - see the history of Zionism in Britain on wikipedia. The lesson ethnonationalists took from the holocaust - with Hitler publicly bemoaning he had no place to dump Jews forcing him into his final solution - was that every ethnicity needed their own homeland.

The story is similar for USAmerican white supremacists and ethic supremacists across Europe. If Israel collapsed, millions of Jews would flee to Europe and the US, and that’s terrible if you’re an antisemite.

But for the past 80 years, publicly admitting you’re doing it for antisemitic or even ethnic supremacist reasons has been a faux pas, so there has been a whole literary genre of dogwhistles and motivated reasoning, combined with weaponizing of the “antisemitic” label, resulting in an intentionally opaque mess of justifications.

So then, as icing on the cake, the observation that this is a mess has been brilliantly co-opted by the propagandists through antisemitic conspiracy theory: Don’t look behind the curtain, look at the Jewish boogeyman projected onto the curtain.

And of course capitalism also plays into this, but the capitalist elite has always been quite generous towards their fellow elites. “Socialism for the rich” is not just a turn of phrase, a lot of billionaires lost good money in the 2008 financial crisis bailout.

Golden parachutes, positions for each other’s nepo babies, charity balls for trophy wives’ pet projects, etc. - Despite capitalism supposedly being about profit maximization, the elites don’t eat their own. They will let their portfolio burn billions to help each other out. But who is the in-group?

Surprise - it’s white supremacists again. It’s Epstein, Trump, Musk, the Kochs, the Waltons, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the British royals, etc. Nonwhites can definitely get invited to the cookout - Obama, Oprah, Rothschilds, etc. - but they are always peripheral and more easily cast out.

It’s not a cabal, it’s a community. Trump was the village idiot but his talent for demagoguery made him the hero of the town. White supremacy isn’t a nefarious grand scheme, it’s just a common belief that affects their friendships, their worldview, and their choices. Multiculturalism was a fun idea that helped destroy unions but now that people are angry it’s easiest to fall back on the people you know (if you know what I mean). Bailouts are helping friends through tough times.

And Israel? Israel is a lightning rod. Anti-elitism can be tainted with antisemitism, ethnic supremacy is legitimized by their existence as a supposed solution to antisemitism while criticism of it isn’t directed at white supremacy, anti-imperialism can be externalized, Islamophobia is sustained to justify oil wars, the military-industrial guys have a nice playing ground, the news can always look away from coups and neocolonial violence elsewhere, etc.

So that’s the world - a bunch of rich white guys using Jews as a scapegoat for their own fuckery. Same as the past 1800 years, really.

Yes, I’m sure that when the Oil Manufacturers Cooperative murders climate activists and spreads propaganda to prevent the adoption of sustainable alternatives, humanity will be much better off…

Capitalism in any form is unsustainable, any system that treats the world as fungible is. What we need is fundamental, structural change.

We need a system that naturally incentivizes degrowth and makes the filling of power vacuums by corrupt, greedy, or opportunistic people or systems impossible.

That’s not capitalism, it’s not syndicalism, it’s not state communism. It’s something in the realm of anarchocommunism. Societies that are prosperous because nobody in them is trying to screw people over: ones without capital accumulation or exertion of power, that are nevertheless resistant to power over them.

Yes. If a Rwandese government spokesperson said the same thing about Rwandese military killing a Reuters journalist in eastern Kivu, Reuters would not quote their statement as “initial inquiry says”. And likewise if China said the same thing about Chinese military killing a Reuters journalist in Xinyang province.

Reuters would be skeptical towards a genocidal regime with a long history of lying to Reuters if that genocidal regime wasn’t in NATO. It would clarify who was doing the inquiry just to remind readers and journalists buying the story off them that that organisation is not to be trusted.

Headlines are compact. Their words are carefully chosen. Leaving out who is doing the inquiry is as much of a statement as any other word choice. Anyone who reads headlines understands that leaving it out means the inquiry is being done by a relatively trusted institution.

But yeah, of course it’s “hardly misinformation”. That’s how all good propaganda works. If a news source lies to you, you’re better off not reading it. But if it tells you truths in a misleading way, then maybe the truth can empower you more than the misleadingness can harm you…

Fair, but social media shows that enshittification doesn’t have to result in them charging money. Advertising and control over the zeitgeist are plenty valuable. Even if people don’t have money to pay for AI, AI companies can use the enshittified AI to get people to spend their food stamps on slurry made by the highest bidder.

And even if companies have conglomerated into a technofeudal dystopia so advertisement is unnecessary, AI companies can use enshittified AI to make people feel confused and isolated when they try to think through political actions that would threaten the system but connected and empowered when they try to think through subjugating themselves or ‘resisting’ in an unproductive way.

If large corporations have zero empathy for their competition, why do they have such an easy time coordinating raising grocery prices well above the free market optimum?

Large corporations are owned by capital holders. Often it’s the same set of capital holders owning different corporations because they’ve diversified their assets. It is not in the interest of their owners to have a free market race to the bottom.

So they make deals. And when socialists force the government to forbid those deals, they find Schelling points where they can make deals without making deals. It’s not collusion; it’s covid supply issues; ask anyone. And with neoliberal/neocon dismantling of regulatory agencies they can just do it.

So they have empathy for other large corporations. But it goes further than that. At least for now, capital assets are still managed by people. Those people are flesh and blood. They eat, they socialize, they make friends, and they care about their friends and acquaintances. And this caring is embedded into the choices that they make at work, where they compete against their friends and acquaintances.

So large corporations have empathy not just for other corporations, but also for rich people in general. Golden parachutes, nepotist appointments, favors, massively overpaid C-suite execs and expensive consultancy jobs from each other’s hobby projects.

Corporations bleed trillions of dollars for the sake of empathy with their competitors and with private individuals, they just won’t accept a competitor to bourgeoisie hegemony.

but pragmatically and philosophically. They’re like 60 years old, and even if it affects them in their lifetime, they’ll be “dead in 20 years”.

Imagine saying this as if human prosperity wasn’t built on people building places for their children and grandchildren.

Capitalism is one of very few philosophies that pretends that selfishness is good, and it would be silly not to blame people that believe in it for the consequences of that philosophy when implemented.

Ordinary western citizens are to blame, because ordinary western citizens could have changed this merely by being morally offended and voting for something else. Most of them personally chose to support capitalism over any alternative. To not even explore the space of possibilities, but to get paid off by corporate-government partnerships that were robbing both the future and the rest of the world.

Conservatives are perfectly capable of understanding positive-sum games when they expect the privileged in-group to be the benefactor. What is a labor contract, if not a positive-sum game where the corporation sucks up all the positive gain?

Game theory as a cental tenet of the human condition is a liberal concept, which conservatives will happily discard if it doesn’t suit them. Conservatives may cloak their disapproval in the guise of liberal concerns so that they’re in a stronger debate position in liberal-dominated social circles, but what they’re really upset by is the negation of the conservative world order - a strict hierarchy with narcissistic men at the top of clearly delineated nations, struggling for dominance through pettiness and violence.

They will accept any negative sum game, they will ruin their own livelihoods and their own lives, if only it helps sad little kings of sad little hills.

Sorry, I was trying to make a reference to an image macro. What I was trying to express is that I didn’t understand the explanation.

It would be cool if you could get tickets for showings with either yelling or no yelling.

Besides, better working conditions for the team means more mentally healthy workers means a better and more creative product.

Burnout and depression are natural responses to a disconnect between what you do and what you care about. Their psychological/physiological purpose is to get you to stop and rethink your life at a deep level. There are many questions that you don’t typically think about, like “why am I still participating in this economy”, “is it ethical for me to pay taxes”, “do I need to prepare for civil war”, or “how do I build up contacts in underground railroads” that your body knows have non-trivial answers in this scenario.

Chimpanzees have politics and tyrants, which means that our ancestors have had to deal with tyrants for at least 10 million years or at least 400,000 generations. We can feel in our blood when other tribe members are scrounging for sharp rocks to bludgeon us to death in the night, and it is only natural to withdraw from business as usual and rethink our options.