Wrong in Russia you mean. If they stop assassinating people, threatening nuclear strikes, conventional attacks, and so on, they wouldn't be anyones enemy.
There are some good people among Russian citizens, abroad or not. Some great people even. Unfortunately they are few and far between and are not representative of the mindset, aspirations and values of their home nation. So saying "the Russians are the enemy" is entirely fair. It is an actively hostile society much like Nazi Germany was during the WW2 and this nitpicking over good individuals is not making the blanket evaluation unfair in any way.
>"There are some good people among Russian citizens, abroad or not. Some great people even. Unfortunately they are few and far between and are not representative of the mindset, aspirations and values of their home nation."
You lost me here. You sound exactly as the people you are trying to put a blame on.
Well I for one didn't start, participate in or have supported the ongoing war of extermination and conquest. And I am not trying to win any Russian hearts and minds; that's one thing about being enemies.
While I share the opinion that Chomsky held back the field of linguistics for decades, the belief that technical or scientific excellence has to beget virtues is a fallacy.
Interestingly it found a GC bug in my toy Lisp that I wrote in Z80 assembly almost 30 years ago. This kind of work appears to be more common than you'd think!
To the proud contrarian, "the empire did nothing wrong". Maybe Sci-fi has actually played a role in the "memetic desire" of some of the titans of tech who are trying to bring about these worlds more-or-less intentionally. I guess it's not as much of a dystopia if you're on top and its not evil if you think of it as inevitable anyway.
I don't know. Walking on everybody's face to climb a human pyramid, one don't make much sincere friends. And one certainly are rightfully going down a spiral of paranoia. There are so many people already on fast track to hate anyone else, if they have social consensus that indeed someone is a freaking bastard which only deserve to die, that's a lot of stress to cope with.
Future is inevitable, but only ignorants of self predictive ability are thinking that what's going to populate future is inevitable.
Still can't believe people buy their stock, given that they are the closest thing to a James Bond villain, just because it goes up.
I've been tempted to. "Everything will be terrible if these guys succeed, but at least I'll be rich. If they fail I'll lose money, but since that's the outcome I prefer anyway, the loss won't bother me."
Trouble is, that ship has arguably already sailed. No matter how rapidly things go to hell, it will take many years before PLTR is profitable enough to justify its half-trillion dollar market cap.
It goes a bit deeper than that since they got funding in the wake of 9/11 and the requests for intelligence and investigative branches of government to do better and coalescing their information to prevent attacks.
So "panopticon that if it had been used properly, would have prevented the destruction of two towers" while ignoring the obvious "are we the baddies?"
To be honest, while I'd heard of it over a decade ago and I've read LOTR and I've been paying attention to privacy longer than most, I didn't ever really look into what it did until I started hearing more about it in the past year or two.
But yeah lots of people don't really buy into the idea of their small contribution to a large problem being a problem.
>But yeah lots of people don't really buy into the idea of their small contribution to a large problem being a problem.
As an abstract idea I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that the size of any contribution to a problem should be measured as a relative proportion of total influence.
The carbon footprint is a good example, if each individual focuses on reducing their small individual contribution then they could neglect systemic changes that would reduce everyone's contribution to a greater extent.
Any scientist working on a method to remove a problem shouldn't abstain from contributing to the problem while they work.
Or to put it as a catchy phrase. Someone working on a cleaner light source shouldn't have to work in the dark.
>As an abstract idea I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that the size of any contribution to a problem should be measured as a relative proportion of total influence.
Right, I think you have responsibility for your 1/<global population>th (arguably considerably more though, for first-worlders) of the problem. What I see is something like refusal to consider swapping out a two-stroke-engine-powered tungsten lightbulb with an LED of equivalent brightness, CRI, and color temperature, because it won't unilaterally solve the problem.
Stock buying as a political or ethical statement is not much of a thing. For one the stocks will still be bought by persons with less strung opinions, and secondly it does not lend itself well to virtue signaling.
Well, two things lead to unsophisticated risk-taking, right... economic malaise, and unlimited surplus. Both conditions are easy to spot in today's world.
The Studio Ghibli craze started with the initial release of images in ChatGPT, and the yellow filter has always existed even at that time. They did not make changes to the model as a result of RL (until pontentially today, with a new model)
Much of existing European F-35 fleet predates Trump's first term. In fact now quite the opposite happens: other options being eyed from reliable partners, even if technically inferior.
reply