I'd say it's a closer race and the end is not a foregone conclusion yet. That one country currently exhibiting some very troubling tendencies also has more robust self-healing mechanisms in the form of democracy. It has gone off course in the past too but then found its way back. That said, those self-healing mechanisms are under attack as well so there is at least some suspense in the long term outcome
I'd love to share your optimism and trust in that country-that-shall-not-be-named's self-healing mechanisms, but its system is already centuries old and based on a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that each of the powers in the state will respect the others. To make things worse, since WW2, the executive has amassed more and more power which a sufficiently unscrupulous president can use to start an authoritarian takeover. Currently, the only hope I see is that enough people are fond enough of their democracy (even if only because that's what they grew up with) to stand up for it when push comes to shove...
A major problem facing that nation is that not many people are particularly interested in maintaining a democracy. They just want to see the “other team” lose.
This is not how the adult world works, and we are all in organizations to know how difficult it is to spin up teams, and get them to a degree of excellence.
America with project 2025 has basically been burning libraries of experience, and it’s not going to come back without decades of slow, painful work to rebuild it.
Since this concept is only visible to people who think and have seen organizational decay, it is going to have a minor impact on the zeitgeist.
Instead voters are going to wonder every year why things aren’t better, not be interested in the boring institution building, and will vote whatever sounds good.
Underpinning all of this, the fundamental flaw that is laying all democracies low, is the challenge of managing our information economies.
We’ve developed ways to pollute and control our speech that don’t involve government control. We have information and media ecosystems that shape discourse by embracing abundance. Our legacy social defenses are “more speech = more good”, and so we have no new ideas how to deal with this new feature of modern life.
The other factor is the increasing concentration of wealth, resulting in those elites being the only voters that count, since they end up consolidating power. The top few households matter more to the economy than everyone beneath them.
These are the two big challenges that we have to address philosophically and practically for the advantages of democracy to kick in again.
If existing capital starts to generate excessive profits, more capital will be built, which will require human labor and will make the original capital less valuable.
In theory. In practice, the excessive capital of the incumbent allows them to price out or buy the budding competition, or the legislators, so as to protect their position.
The natural state of a capitalist system is the monopoly.
Largely because they didn't actually need it. Their conventional artillary pointed at south korea was already (and still is) more of a deterrnt than the nuke is.
Nobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were.
The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad.
The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them?
So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated.
That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does.
"The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad."
Have you checked, how many outside interventions both countries had and still have?
Labelling this as "internal" is pretty missleading. If both dictators would have had nuclear weapons ready to launch, no foreign bomber would have dared going in against the regime.
> That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does.
That isn't a MAD situation.
Pakistan has nukes but they can't launch them on the US.
Pick an activity that is accessible that catches your fancy. Even better if you already have an activity, just spend more time doing it and with people you enjoy hanging out with. At a minimum you'll start feeling less lonely and over time hopefully you'll start forming relationships outside the activity
I am a recent convert to pickleball and highly recommend it because it relatively easy to start with but also the wide range of people who participate in the sport - college kids to retirees
I see mentions of Gemini as a fast growing alternative to ChatGPT. Isn't anyone troubled by the fact that for consumers there is no way to keep your data from being used for model training if you want to maintain history of your Gemini chats.
ChatGPT respects privacy and allows for maintaining history while also opting out of using ones data for model training
I trust Google ad monopoly to keep my data actually secure. They have a great track record of not sharing their datasets with anyone because this gives them an edge pushing ads down people throats. Google is honest about what they doing. Google also not going away anytime soon so they also not going to sell off their datasets to highest bidder.
And I don't trust Sam Altman and AI.com at all since their whole thing was built on lies. They could start regaining the trust by changing their company name.
It's not just about protecting data in the old sense - typically from other corporate entities. It would suck if your information somehow made it into a generally available model that then leaked some of that anyone asking a question
Its been a while so i had trouble finding it (but Grok obliged)
Moreover its always the edge cases that people are 'OK' with, but again if they can do it (setup the infrastructure) for one thing they can do it for anything, and it makes 'trusting' them seem naive. Since trusting was the original statement.
This shouldn't be a surprise - capitalism always overshoots. Anything worth investing in will generally receive too much investment in because very few people can tell where the line is.
And that's what causes bubbles but at this point it should be clear that AI will make a substantial impact - at least as great as the internet, likely larger
You made the point for me. That 100bn doubled every 2-3 years. It wasn’t a bubble, but it absolutely looked like one. This will be a bitter lesson too.
reply