Jump to content

zazen

Knob Twiddlers
  • Posts

    2258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

zazen last won the day on March 21

zazen had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

3982 profile views

zazen's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (13/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine

Recent Badges

275

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. Oh good lord this isnt that hard. Just read the tweet just before. Ten minutes before that tweet, he tweeted the threats he'd received from Rogozin, boss of the russian space agency. More here. His tweet about 'if I die' is clearly a pisstake of peoples tendancy to tweet 'i am not suicidal' when they think the deep state is onto them. You can tell its a joke by the unconventional end to the tweet.
  2. Has anyone posted this Kokichi Sugihara "ambigous object" stuff? This melts my brain: More: Kokichi Sugihara's Homepage (meiji.ac.jp)
  3. well yeah thats pretty obvious, from the point of view that most of the mega-rich own a newspaper or a TV channel or something. Thats no accident, they get a lot of influence from that. Musk being a bit more modern has chosen to buy Twitter while Bezos is a bit more trad so bought the Washington Post. The Koch brothers own Time magazine, Rupert Murdoch owns a whole load of TV and newspapers etc etc BUT Musk has stated his reasons and if you look back at other things he's been concerned with in the past (like OpenAI) it makes sense - he's basically saying that if we're going to have massive algorithms deciding what tweets to put into people's feeds, that should be a transparent process rather than the murky shit we have going on right now with facebook and twitter etc. Its based on the share price when he made the offer plus 30-40% or so. So the question for shareholders is 'sell now or do you think you'll get a better price in future'. Evidently they think its a good price. Lots of people are rightly suspicous and maybe he's full of shit or whatever but I've been watching him for a while and I think he's sincere in his main aims (e.g. see this) But I do wonder if this whole 'buy twitter' thing is a displacement activity, like maybe there was some stressful problem at SpaceX this month (get those raptor engines mass produced!) or Tesla (get that european gigafactory properly active) and he ended up buying twitter as a kindof stress reaction, in the same way that I'll argue with people in the Aphex forum when really I should have been doing my tax return.
  4. This is good advice from Dr Lopez Although if you do need to post somewhere MIXL2, you might as well post here, seems like you have a generally supportive crowd in this thread Hope you're ok
  5. War in the 21st century is a massively complicated collision of powerful nation states, complex geopolitical economics, and extensive multilayered social media campaigns from all sides which generally aim to simplify everything down to soundbites which benefit that side, its very emotive and even in a forum environment where people are potentially tolerant to unconventional points of view, being a bit too obstinate or strident can get you censored.
  6. War is hell and its entirely possible that both sides have people prepared to do horrible things Detailed analysis by BBC: "Does video show Russian prisoners being shot?" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60907259 Guardian: UN official concerned over videos showing apparent abuse of PoWs in Ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/29/un-official-concerned-over-videos-showing-apparent-abuse-of-pows-in-ukraine
  7. To cover all bases, I recommend you arm yourself with a gold bomb shelter. Your comment about the petrodollar and Russia selling gas for rubles interested me and I hadnt heard about it so I went and found some links https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-scholz-rejects-putins-rubles-for-gas-demand/ https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/is-there-an-actual-threat-to-the-petrodollar-system--15943080 tbh the petrodollar thing is something I wasn't really aware of: Why should I worry if China wants to pay for its oil in Yuan instead of dollars? Seems fair enough to me. Russia wanting to sell its gas for rubles, to people who are supplying weapons to the people Russia ia trying to invade, is hard to take a clear view on. Like the modern relationship between nation states that are simulataneously trading with each other while criticising each other has layers of complexity. Which is the real relationship, the economic one (in which the states exchange goods and cash for mutual benefit) or the political one (in which the heads of state make speeches criticing each other). One is about basic needs and the other about principles. I guess its like a supermarket that wants to knock your house down to build a new carpark that they dont really need, but you have to shop there anyway because there's no other shop for 20 miles. So you go there but you get to the checkout and they say 'well you chucked red paint all over our delivery van so we wont sell you this food unless you join our loyalty card scheme' and then you're thinking 'well, you cunt, I chucked paint on your van because you deliberately blocked my driveway with it' but the thought of getting the bus 20 miles to the other supermarket is a real drag so you stand there deciding whether to give in or not. Having written that I guess I'd want Europe to tell Putin to shove his gas up his arse but in practice perhaps thats not economically feasible. edit: afterthought: I'm not trying to belittle what Russia is doing at all with supermarket analogy, just trying to scale the unfathomable relationship between "giant super powerful potentially mass murdering nation states" down into something easier to reason about at a human level
  8. Great pretend future article about uploads: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
  9. If we're talking utopias I always liked Iain M Banks Culture - the idea being once you get as far as (say) the asteroid belt you have infinite resources and are able to transition to a post-scarcity society that is basically communism but completely unrecognisable as such because its post-scarcity. Also chuck in a lot of other ideas about space-based civilization being fundamentally different:
  10. I mean, that is the point of communism. We can facepalm it now but 100 years ago lots of people took the idea very seriously. At least it suggests a method to get to no war. Anyone else got any ideas? Other than: 1. Legalise weed 2. ???? 3. No more war!
  11. OK, when you put it that way, I can sortof see your objection. But any version of 'imagine [20th century figure] was a pacifist' is going to lead to fairly wild implications so personally the use of Stalin didn't bother me.
  12. Alright, but how do we get there, given where we are now? e.g Europe has been spending less on defence because it was leaning on the USA. Now it looks like Europe will start spending more on defense. If you're saying 'as a citizen, work to strengthen stable democratic institutions in society and that will help' then I can get behind that, but it seems like the first step in a centuries long path
  13. Sometimes hermolia makes reasonable points but then it seems some people misunderstand them because they're so used to him making extreme points Hermolia is just saying that pacifism is a nice ideal but in reality a pacifist state would be quickly taken over by a non-pacifist one. e.g. if the ussr had been communist and pacifist, what would have happened to them? Thats a reasonable and fair question to ask and its not fair to dunk on it just because the question came from Hermolia. I like the ideal of pacifism but I dont see how we get there ... if there's just one bad state and a load of pacifist ones, the bad state wins. 'Why do we need police' is the same sort of debate. I think my position is that 'collective action problems' need rules (and hence some kind of sanctions) rather than just trust to avoid suboptimal outcomes. Happy to talk about that, it might seem like a tangent but when there's a war on, its worth asking 'why war'?
  14. I appreciate your viewpoint being in this thread because you're in Finland, and your country has had to deal with Russias shit for a long time
  15. So surely the only way this can end is by a peace deal? But the tactical question is when and on what terms. The Russians know that if they just wreck everything and make life hell for civilians then that pushes Ukraine towards a deal sooner. Ukraine have done well militarily but surely there's no way they can actually repel the Russians back to the border. Its more that they can make things difficult and expensive enough for Russia that they also accept a deal. You could make a utilitarian case that the best outcome for civilians is a peace deal asap, followed up by international pressure and support to enable Ukraine to stand up to whatever shenanigans Putin pulls next.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.