The Monroe Doctrine was about preventing colonial powers from enacting NEW efforts to reach into the Americas, not about getting rid of previous control.
"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects FOR FUTURE COLONIZATION by any European powers." (emphasis mine)
"You were one of only two people in 2017 to post a story about Mastodon and gave it a single point. You essentially predicted the platform’s entire future relevance in one brutally honest data point."
I've been self-medicating ADHD with multiple cups of coffee a day since I was 17. I'm in my early 30s now, and after getting on Vyvanse, have reduced then given up coffee. I realised that coffee was the reason for my anxiety which builds up towards the end of the day.
I reduced my coffee down to 1 espresso per day two months ago, and quit entirely two weeks ago. I'm still on stimulants, but Vyvanse treats ADHD much better and has fewer side-effects.
Same here, my afternoon anxiety from daily coffee consumption (1-2 cups typically) got really bad on some days. I was heavily addicted to coffee and nicotine for years but I managed to quit both of those after realizing that they weren't doing me any favors. I continued to have cravings until I got on ADHD medication then they practically disappeared overnight and never came back.
I think more people should give green or black tea a try, I found them to provide similar effects to coffee but with fewer side effects.
Don't worry, once the Wall Street tap runs dry, the U.S. government will be more than happy to step in and bail out the AI corps. at the taxpayer's expense.
> Don't worry, once the Wall Street tap runs dry, the U.S. government will be more than happy to step in and bail out the AI corps. at the taxpayer's expense.
I have a brilliant idea. Why not start this now?
The US government will give every child born $1000 in money in order to hand it to the small number of families who own 70% of equities in order to purchase equities the child can't touch for 18 years. That is US Government -> child -> rich person who currently owns the equity, although the rich person gets the cash in hand the child has to wait 18 years to sell the equity.
Where does the US Government get this $1000 per child from? Borrow it, adding to the $38,000,000,000,000 in national debt.
Here is the interesting part of my brilliant plan. That child will inherit, calculated per capita, $111,000 in debt the moment she is born. That child will be responsible, calculated per capita, for ~$3,000 a year in interest on that debt.
In order to sell the idea, every time the US Government gives $1000 to a child to purchase stocks I own, I will give $250 to another child to purchase stocks I own. Let's do the math: $1000 profit - $250 loss + $250 profit = $1000 profit. Best part is the media will run this as the leading news story for 3 days making me look like God.
Subtract GDP growth and it’s slightly negative, meaning simply borrowing more money and the at current rates the debt to GDP ratio decreases over time. Massive spending sprees are why it’s gotten so huge, kicking it down the road turns it into a smaller problem soon as politicians stop actively making the issue worse it goes away.
We could argue about the risk if things start to fail, but in an emergency the US could change its constitution and abandon its debt.
The new AI data center I build to do what ever it is that AI Clippy does over at Microsoft will run on coal energy and those dirty chimneys are not going to clean themselves.
Not to disagree with the overall point, but because this comes up a lot I'll nitpick it: issuing debt is not the same as printing money
With debt, along with the proverbial "cash" comes an opposing "IOU" -- any change* is thus only temporary, in the time dimension (essentially that's what's being exchanged: time)
Printing money out of nowhere is different, because it's missing that other half
* at the risk of stating the obvious: "change" meaning "difference" and not "cents"
A lot of debt also arises because of savings needs. If everyone is saving for retirement, for example, that savings has to be debt marked somewhere else. Examples:
* Social security used to have a huge surplus, that was savings that had to go somewhere (even if it was just a savings account in a bank, the bank would then be able to lend it out). They instead buy treasuries and that savings becomes debt to the USG.
* China likewise needs to save dollars because it doesn't want them sloshing around in their economy leading to inflation, so instead of using it to buy things they buy treasuries, and their savings becomes debt to the USG (not always a great deal for China if interest rates are below inflation).
The dollar has been so useful in the past as a currency of trade because you could save large amounts of it easily by buying US treasuries. One reason China doesn't want the RMB to be used so heavily for trade is that they don't want to do the same yet.
Actually it kind of is, in as much as it expands the money supply.
When a bank issues debt, the money is created 'out of thin air'. When the debt is paid off, that money is destroyed. However usually more debt is being created than redeemed as things go on, so the total money supply increases (this is a good thing, as it allows the economy to expand).
Various regulations and central bank market interventions (quantitative tightening/easing) control this process, which thus can be induced to 'print money' if the government wishes - assuming they have a sovereign currency.
Fractional reserve banking is still not the same as printing money outright
If you borrow $100 USD from the bank, and pay it off immediately after, it's clear no money was "created" as such
If $100 USD is "printed" outright, it's clear that there's no way to achieve that same result
The fact that the debt isn't generally paid back immediately doesn't change that fundamental. That's what I meant when I said any apparent "change" is about "time" rather than "money"
It is true that the money supply should expand with the economy. Turning raw materials into finished goods represents a larger "net economy" at the end of the process than at the beginning. (Indeed that's basically how it makes sense to have interest on debt in the first place)
Nevertheless, printing money out of whole cloth is different from issuing debt
> If you borrow $100 USD from the bank, and pay it off immediately after, it's clear no money was "created" as such
The bank "printed" money by handing out cash that it didn't have. It only had a fraction of it. That new money went free into the world with the same respect any other cash gets. You and I can't pull that off.
Ok fine I'll agree call it "creating money" rather than "printing money", because it's not the same mechanism the central bank uses to "print" permanent money (technically not printed either but whatever), but money is still created by the bank.
History reminder to everyone: The dot com companies were not bailed out. Only the Detroit auto industry. What is with this rage-bait assumption that a bailout is guaranteed?
China is focusing heavily on AI applications. They have basically decided already to deal with their coming demographic bust with robuts/AI rather than immigration. Its not even about military applications, the US is just afraid that China will shoot so far ahead of us economically that they won't have any leverage over it in the future at all.
There's a lot of nonsense that comes out on both sides of the aisle. I wish there was a solid single source of truth to figure out what's really going on in China and what's really going on behind the scenes in the U.S.
Some talk about how China has some strategic issues, such as do they have a reliable supply of food and energy? (Zeihan etc.)
I guess the energy portion is being solved with renewables. And I guess if they solve the issue of demographic collapse with robots and AI, that's something.
But really, if there's less people and they're getting older, what's the point? What are they really working towards?
This question is also becoming a problem post-Trump immigration ban in the U.S.
Who knows what the U.S.'s demographics are going to look like now?
Trump inherited a U.S. with some of the best demographics of all nations on the planet, especially in the West. And he managed to throw that in the garbage.
> I wish there was a solid single source of truth to figure out what's really going on in China
What kind of sources are you looking for? The Five Year Plans are the best source of truth for what they are planning on doing nationwide. The annual Statistical Communiqué on National Economic and Social Development and China Statistical Yearbook from the NBS contain statistics on how that implementation is going. Then every year the NDRC delivers the Report on the Implementation of the Plan for National Economic and Social Development and on the Draft Plan to the National People’s Congress which packages up the statistics on how the plan is progressing.
They’re the most reliable source we’re going to get without being party insiders. There’s still Soviet-style inflation of figures to meet quotas but China has been cracking down on that for the last few decades because they want accurate data for the five year plans. I think it’s more of a problem with outer provinces, less so for the major manufacturing hubs.
Alternative sources to verify are a bit harder to find without knowing the languages (lots of the NRDC and NBS stats are available in English).
Yes, people also compare some of these statistics with export/import data and with data from other countries on the other side of these transactions, and the numbers match.
You could just go over there and live for a few years, you can be your own source. But yes, they have energy, no they don't have oil, yes they have lots of agriculture land, no they messed up some of their environment and that will take time to heal, yes they are working on it.
> But really, if there's less people and they're getting older, what's the point? What are they really working towards?
China wants to be a rich country even if their population stabilizes at only 900 million people or so. Mostly they want to avoid the middle income trap, which would have been a problem regardless of their demographics falling off a cliff. Automation is the best way to get around it, and they have enough tech, production know how and capacity, and smart people to pull that off.
China is going to continue doing what is best for it, and they haven't gone stupid like the USA has. Embracing AI for productive uses rather than just fixating on the slop produced is one place where they are racing past the west.
>You could just go over there and live for a few years, you can be your own source.
No I can't. First of all single anecdotes do not equal national numbers and secondly the truth may be hidden away from westerners and not easy to gleam even if I live there. I experienced this when moving to Europe. I thought WOW this place has every potential to be a strong equal to the US. They got (enough)money, so much bright talent, they can do anything the US can do and then some. But I missed the structural problems at a macro level and it wasn't until I left and many years passed that I finally understood. I just want that insight without having to go through all of that.
There's a lot of nonsense that comes out on both sides of the aisle. I wish there was a solid single source of truth to figure out what's really going on in China and what's really going on behind the scenes in the U.S.
I've always assumed that there is such a source of truth, but that I had never heard of it, wouldn't have access to it, and couldn't afford it if I did.
Reading a few tweets from Musk was all it took to correct that misapprehension. It's increasingly clear that nobody at any level of play knows jack shit about anything.
This is not true. I was recently reminded of this during the recent small elections that occured. The parties have "internal polling" that was significantly more accurate such that it caused shifts in actions (see the recent surge in efforts by Trump and his party to maintain control of the TN house seat).
Furthermore we saw Musk's and his buddies confidence in the 2024 election. We now know he had internal applications built to better understand what was really going on and access to better analytics than what was shown in the news.
The regular people (like me) were left to rely on pollsters and our confidence come from the fact that many of these pollsters had decades of experience getting things right. This was then regurgitated among all the news (and political youtubers) about how things were going only to have all their predictions be wrong and these esteemed pollsters deciding to retire.
Looking back it may have been all a scam and that its possible that these pollsters were getting ready to retire anyway and gave into party pressure to make Kamala look better than she really was. The end result is that we wasted our time believing nonsense and I am done with it.
I agree that political sentiment analysis is one area where the high-level players really do have oracular resources that the rest of us lack. Besides Musk, a good example might be how Bezos pivoted instantly from neutral to pro-Trump leading up to the 2024 election. Seems clear that he knew what was about to happen when he killed the Harris endorsement in the Post.
But the question here is more general than that. Musk didn't have a reliable source of ground truth when he accused the Thai cave diver of being a pedophile. If he did, he didn't use it. Ditto, when he woke up one day and decided that Twitter was worth $54.20/share. You could point to countless other examples where highly-positioned, highly-resourceful, "high agency" people simply read the room wrong.
> There's a lot of nonsense that comes out on both sides of the aisle. I wish there was a solid single source of truth to figure out what's really going on in China and what's really going on behind the scenes in the U.S.
Isn't this simply the answer?
That what's going on is gaslighting of the public and that there are people behind the scenes and they don't want hoi polloi to know what they're up to?
This geo-politics (or politics) talk is 'intellectual' men's astrology.
When a woman asks me my astrological sign, I know she's a deeply unserious person. When a man says 'do they have a reliable supply of food and energy'...
I said the same thing on a different post and people downvoted it. The current administration believes that the US can't fall behind China in this AI arms race. So don't expect anything too drastic to happen to the large players in the game.
Does anybody know how much an ML model is actually worth to build a new model? Like when they start making a new model, do they modify the old or do they start from scratch?
I'm asking to know how much owning a model is actually worth, not in how much it could make money by selling use, but in how much it deprecates and keeps value to make a new one. If say one side of China/US lacks out on a model generation, do they only need to follow progress on the science behind it and when they own the data, the algorithm and the hardware all they need is "just" time and energy or is it important, that they actually have their on instance of a large model from every generation continuously?
Maybe, but a clear Republican bailout of AI might wipe them out for several election cycles / foreseeable future. Big tech isn’t popular, AI isn’t popular and bail outs aren’t popular
What evidence do you have that that's going to be the case? I ask because my entire life, I've seen terrible things done by the Republican Party. And regular people get really hurt. For example, the great financial crisis. Yet, a little bit of time passes, and that 30-some-odd percent goes right back to voting for them.
The public voted for Republicans in their highest-ever numbers in 2020 when the party did everything possible to denigrate public health efforts and scientific research at a time when hundreds of thousands were dying of Covid, with no Mexican wall or Obamacare repeal promises met.
There is no scenario where the American vote for a party will fall below 48%, and elections will continue to be decided by how 3-4 states vote.
> At one side, people are unhappy about AI, at the other side, who of those same people will stop using ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments for them.
As Newsweek points out*, the people most unhappy about AI are the ones who CAN'T use ChatGPT to write their work e-mails and assignments because they NO LONGER have access to those jobs. There are many of us who believe that the backlash against AI would never have gotten so strong if it hadn't come at the expense of the creators, the engineers, and the unskilled laborers first.
AI agents are the new scabs, and the people haven't been fooled into believing that AI will be an improvement in their lives.
This topic always tickles the pedantic part of my brain. If I may assume that the reader would agree that JS is a programming language, what makes it a programming language and not HTML? What makes a static .js file a program and a static .html file not a program?
Generally speaking, HTML doesn't have the constructs necessary to actually compute things. There's no way to declare variables, and there are no conditionals, jumping, or mathematical operations. All you can do is specify a fixed set of page elements.
Embedded JS within HTML doesn't count here, as that's essentially no different than a linked script file.
To be fair, there are some exceptions to this; there are some very hacky and convoluted ways you might be able to get some programmatic behavior out of pure HTML (I remember hearing about a weird example in part of Wikipedia's codebase).
HTML literally means hypertext markup language. It's more like TeX or Markdown, in that it's used to store and represent data, not to manipulate it.
> All you can do is specify a fixed set of page elements.
I'm not denying this but rather questioning why this means the document which specifies this is not a program. The previous sentences describe why it's not Turing-complete, which is moot to whether it's a programming language.
> HTML literally means hypertext markup language. It's more like TeX or Markdown, in that it's used to store and represent data, not to manipulate it.
I disagree that HTML is not used to manipulate data. Unless you mean to say that it doesn't manipulate it directly but I think that's also moot. My day job is to use HTML to build forms that are used to accept user input for data manipulations. It seems to me that I'm programming the browser to render the correct form and the language I'm using for the programming is HTML.
Besides, being used only to store and represent data does not seem to necessarily preclude it being a programming language. "Program" is a word that's used to describe a presentation of some kind. A wind ensemble might perform a "program" of pieces on concert night.
Well, if you'll pardon the tautology, it's a language that's used for precisely expressing programs. Of course, that just shifts the question. What's a program?
It's a set of instructions for a computer to execute. Hopefully that's not controversial. But isn't `<input type="text">` an instruction to render a text input?
It is "controversial" because it's way too vague, which the pedant part should recognize (is a mouse click not an instruction for a computer to execute?), so of course you won't be able to differentiate at this level.
If anything, I made it too specific by saying computer.
> is a mouse click not an instruction for a computer to execute?
If an SOP document—another example of a program—says to click a button on the screen, then of course that action is part of the instructions for a program. No computer needed, even; the instruction could be to stick my thumb up my nose, for all it matters.
It's overly simplified to the point of being meaningless. A .js file is a document that presents information to me when I open it using a text editor. So is a .html file, for that matter. Something different happens when they're opened in a browser and, for that reason, they both seem to be programs as well.
you can ignore the fact that they look like text. look past that
program and document just are different things. (I gave a simplified definition). if they both are represented using text when creating, it doesn't make them the same. because some text is a programming language and can create program, and some text use markup language and can create document.
it's like humans and worms are carbon life, if you only look at that you can't tell difference between humans and worms. you need to look what kinds of cells are in them or even better what they do
It seems like you want to intentionally not understand this?
> It seems like you want to intentionally not understand this?
It seems like you are offering a poor response to a difference of opinion.
> if they both are represented using text when creating, it doesn't make them the same.
I think you misunderstood my point. You gave definitions that were overly simplistic, thinking they were accurate. I was just pointing out how inaccurate it is to say "program does thing. document presents info." Rather, more accurately, I'm pointing out that a file being one thing does not preclude it from being another (seeing as I generally agree that programs do things and documents present information).
You are taking the position that a document and a program are mutually exclusive and that's just not true. HTML files are executed as programs by a browser and displayed as a document by a text editor. JS files, too. I could go on. Of course, this opinion is not borne from willful ignorance of your opinion, but instead from my understanding of English.
> it's like humans and worms are carbon life, if you only look at that you can't tell difference between humans and worms. you need to look what kinds of cells are in them or even better what they do
You're arguing my point for me, with this paragraph. In the given analogy, "carbon life" is analogous to "program":
It's like, HTML and JS files are programs. If you can't tell the difference between HTML and JS files, you need to look at what text is in them or, even better, what they do.
Yes, thanks. That's pretty much what I'm saying. HTML and JS files are programs, much like how worms and humans are carbon-based organisms. They're otherwise wildly different and do different things. That genuinely seems obvious (to me) with no room for controversy. I'm not sure what reason there is for disagreement.
> HTML files are executed as programs by a browser and displayed as a document by a text editor. JS files, too. I could go on
This reveals fundamental misunderstanding what is HTML and JS. "program" being different from "document" doesn't preclude some documents to have embedded programs within. however it doesn't turn a document into a program and doesn't mean markup language becomes programming language. there is still clear separation between hypertext markup and executable JS code
You write your comment as though I'm suggesting the HTML file is executed because it contains a script element. I'm not; an HTML file with no script tag, say just the text "Hello world!"[0], is executed by a browser as a program. Because if that HTML file instead contained something like <select><option>Hello world!</option></select>, it would know to render some kind of list to choose from.
If I put that HTML inside of a <form> element, I could even get it to send the selections to a server of my choosing using the "action" attribute on said form (I may need to further instruct the browser to render a <button> or <input type="submit> inside the form or do some other fancy shenanigans). Put more useful options in the select and maybe some other input elements with some useful <label> elements and I might just have myself a graphical interface which people can use to submit information to me. But that's not right because it's just "present[ing] info", which just happens to be useful labels and inputs to in a form that will send the user-provided information to an external program; just a regular document, nothing special or "instructive" or "do[ing] things" about it. I hope I'm not laying it on too thick.
Seriously, though, if I didn't just describe a program that's executed by a browser then we have such fundamentally different ideas of what a "program" is that I might as well just concede that you're right, by whatever definition of the word you must be using.
[0] Every "Hello world!" program tutorial, which only instructs how to print that text to the screen before exiting, in every programming language ever is generally (and, IMO, reasonably) claimed to be a program, however rudimentary.
> it would know to render some kind of list to choose from.
but this is not executing a program. this interpreting markup to render some data in some format. HTML is the same programming language as XML or Markdown or JPG or MIDI or WAV... so, not really a programming language. it's input for a program written using some programming language
sometimes presenting data and programming are conflated, for example postscript, but this is not HTML
> Put more useful options in the select and maybe some other input elements with some useful <label> elements and I might just have myself a graphical interface which people can use to submit information to me. But
Handling form submissions, handling displaying select boxes etc, is all result of executing program that is browser itself. The input for that program is hypertext markup by webmaster.
(Running embedded JS however is executing a program by webmaster.)
I think trying to present markup as programming is very artificial and does not correspond to real world.
> but this is not executing a program. this interpreting markup to render some data in some format.
Yes, it's interpreting markup to render some data in some format but that does not preclude such interpretation from being the execution of a program.
> sometimes presenting data and programming are conflated
My point is that executing a program is not mutually exclusive with presenting data. I am not conflating these terms but rather the opposite; I am pointing out that they are separate concepts which do not necessarily conflict with each other.
> Handling form submissions, handling displaying select boxes etc, is all result of executing program that is browser itself. The input for that program is hypertext markup
Right, that "hypertext markup" is a program for the browser (another program) to execute. That seems like an accurate use of English. If this is where we draw the line then JS must not be a programming language because it's just some kind of "script text" that is the input for some other real program.
> Running embedded JS however is executing a program by webmaster.
I understand this is your perspective but you haven't drawn a clear line separating this from the execution of an HTML program. Running plain HTML in a browser, consisting strictly of the necessary components of a valid HTML document, is also executing a program (webmaster isn't necessary).
Why is that a better descriptor? I don't understand this desire to demarcate between programming languages and whatever a "syntax" language is. All languages have syntax, even natural languages - it's one of the terms we've borrowed from linguists.
HTML is one of the languages I use when I am programming. In the sense, I really struggle to see the argument that it isn't a programming language, unless someone is using a very precise definition of "programming language" that I'm not privy to. There's a bunch of well-defined stuff it _isn't_ (e.g. Turing-complete), and a bunch of well-defined stuff that it is (e.g. declarative, or a markup language), but as far as I can tell there's no better definition of "programming language" than "language used for programming", and it certainly seems to fit that bill.
We're in a Live Fast Die Young karma world. If you can't get a TikTok ready with 2 minutes of the post modem drop, you might as well quit and become a barista instead.
You, too, are practicing and advocating for a philosophy here.
Also, the lack of objectivity in the universe doesn't necessarily mean that nihilism is the ONLY way to go. Existentialism, for example, doesn't accept an objective reality either, and folks have found ways to make morality (and even religious faith) fully compatible within that framework.
Obviously, it's not good to delve into metaphysical speculation, as it often clearly leads to junk conclusions written by people who don't have the credentials to account for what the actual science (OR the actual philosophy) says.
But I do wonder what it would be like if modern physicists were more willing to pair up with modern philosophers once in awhile. I would very much love to see a collaboration between the two fields to explore what a subjective universe really MEANS to us as both a species and as moral beings in that universe.
I, very much, would love to see what some of these implications are, as written out by the folks who actually understand the science. Even if there's no true consensus among them, just learning what the different possibilities might be could be very enlightening.
They already censored the not-porn (but still NSFW) photos. I don't think it would've made as much of a difference censoring the porn photos as well, especially when trying to convince people that they're not just creating click-bait.
A lot of folks use TikTok on a regular basis. This article is the one making the claim that's far and away different from what most folks experience on the platform.
Since I'm not about to go on there, pretend to be a 13-year old boy, and start seeking out the porn myself, I really need to see some evidence that this is a thing that is actually possible before I start picking out a pitchfork.
"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects FOR FUTURE COLONIZATION by any European powers." (emphasis mine)
https://usinfo.org/PUBS/LivingDoc_e/monroe.htm
reply