when your whistle blowing only reveals secrets of one side, then i am very skeptical of motivations.
where are the dumps from north korea. where is kim jong un's private communications with Xi Jinping. Where is Putin's communications with Lukashenko.
Where are internal memos from the people's liberation army. Where are the leaks from the Ayatollahs.
Also yes the targets were western governments. What about western corporations? Where are leaks from Boeing about their issues? Where are leaks from Facebook about PTSD of their moderators? Where are the leaks about Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or whatever?
The targets WL chose were basically the "evil west", you know, the only reason Ukraine has not been reduced to a prison complex.
The motivations of a person who disproportionately helps western governments is troubling to you? Or is it that you don't consider exposing criminal conduct helpful?
I don't understand your point. Internet and forests are different systems. They both have different uses and different types of management. It doesn't make sense to me to compare. Could you expand more?
I mean we do have “old growth standards” that are legally mandated in the tech industry… EU mandates for USB micro-B and usb-C are an example, as are PCI standards and similar security standards around banking endpoint security etc.
RMS - "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it," . . . "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm her psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman...
It shouldn't take years of conversations to understand that pedophilia is bad.
Ironically BSD doesn't have "a ruler", a cult-like leader like RMS. It is more democratized than GNU.
> It shouldn't take years of conversations to understand that pedophilia is bad.
[Without taking the bait of addressing "pedophilia," but the specific comment RMS made that got generalized...]
Your objection is he committed thoughtcrime by not taking certain gospel on a taboo subject at face value, has actually thought about it and discussed it with folks, and even changed his opinion on the subject in the end. Note that there is zero evidence he has shown any personal interest in having sex with children and this is some abstract analysis by a heterodox, and analytical mind, dare I say neurodivergent and on the spectrum, looking at it.
If it helps, what you consider such an obvious settled matter, even on its simplest dimension, the age-of-consent, varies among the united States, let alone the entire world where lots of cultures have different opinions about it.
> Ironically BSD doesn't have "a ruler", a cult-like leader like RMS. It is more democratized than GNU.
The BSD community has had their fair share of drama and accusations of misogyny too. RMS is hardly the driving force behind modern decisions that drive Linux distros. That crown, if any, probably belongs to Red Hat.
> Your objection is he committed thoughtcrime by not taking certain gospel on a taboo subject at face value, has actually thought about it and discussed it with folks, and even changed his opinion on the subject in the end. Note that there is zero evidence he has shown any personal interest in having sex with children and this is some abstract analysis by a heterodox, and analytical mind, dare I say neurodivergent and on the spectrum, looking at it.
The inscriptions you refer to aren't Sanskrit, but Hurrian. The inscriptions in question contain Indo-European loan words and seemingly reference Vedic gods, but that does not make them Sanskrit inscriptions. If you're looking for the earliest Sanskrit inscriptions, you're looking to the first century BCE, over a millennium and a half later than this plaque. We have Sanskrit texts that are older than this, but the physical artifacts are newer copies of older copies that don't survive.
In the era of the atomic bomb, conventional war no longer takes place directly between tier 1 (nuclear) powers because the rulers can’t have that. The rulers on both sides ultimately want to enjoy their wealth and power. They want to go to the brothel at the end of the day. So they won’t risk getting into a nuclear war. This is even truer in the era of Globalism where enjoying wealth and power generally means enjoying the benefits of the global supply chain: yachts, supercars, travel, exotic imports, etc. A nuclear war would disrupt all that. It would make being an oligarch a lot less fun, so they will generally avoid messing with the world at that level. Finally, in the era of the atomic bomb, conventional warfare (sending your tanks and battleships against your enemy) is obsolete for tier 1 powers. If you are a tier 1 power and another tier 1 power starts sending tanks your way, you send off one nuke to nuke all the tanks. Conventional warfare is not obsolete for tier 2 powers since it’s all they have. A tier 2 power battling it out in conventional warfare against another tier 2 power means something. Conventional warfare means very little to tier 1 powers. Tier 1 and tier 2 powers play by completely different rules.
As a result, conventional war only takes place now on tier 2 (non-nuclear) lands. If there are sabers to be rattled between two tier 1 powers, the rattling will happen on tier 2 land, usually with tier 2 powers being the primary warring parties (proxy war). You also see tier 1 powers making the occasional move but always against tier 2 powers only, e.g. Russia -> Ukraine. If Ukraine had nukes there would be no war in Ukraine. Notice how it’s war IN Ukraine: on tier 2 land. If Ukraine managed to make it a war IN Russia, they’d be nuked to oblivion.
Agree except that Ukraine is slowly taking the war to Russia itself, their drones are getting further and further. I think Russia would rather invent a way to safe face than face whatever consequences may come after nuking Ukraine to oblivion.
But those are small, isolated attacks. Front line is still deep in the Ukrainian territory. If Ukrainian counter-offensive manged to move it deep enough withing Russian borders, Russia would nuke them.
And as for consequences I do not think the West would do anything about that. US won't go on full scale nuclear war with Russia over some insignificant country at the end of the world, that isn't even a NATO member. So the worst outcome of nuking Ukraine for Russia is to get even more economic sanctions, that's all.
And as for consequences I do not think the West would do anything about that.
The worst outcome of nuking Ukraine for Russia is to get even more economic sanctions, that's all.
The response won't be nuclear, per its stated posture on this. But it's hard to imagine the United States would do basically nothing of substance in response, and it hasn't ruled out a violent conventional response. And at least back in 2022, Biden took care to put this messaging out indicating there would be a "consequential" response, per his interview with Scott Pelley:
"And I wonder, Mr. President, what you would say to him if he is considering using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons?"
"Don't. Don't. Don't. You will change the face of war unlike anything since World War II," Mr. Biden said.
When Pelley asked what the consequences would be if Putin crossed that line, the president wouldn't say.
"You think I would tell you if I knew exactly what it would be? Of course, I'm not gonna tell you. It'll be consequential," Mr. Biden said. "They'll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been. And depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur."
US won't go on full scale nuclear war with Russia over some insignificant country at the end of the world
First, while it isn't a NATO partner or of similar status, Ukraine is absolutely not "insignificant" to the at least the current administration in the U.S., and the whole Atlanticist crowd. It would not have stuck its neck out (and expended its political capital) as far as it has on Ukraine's behalf thus far, if that were the case.
And while it won't go nuclear over Ukraine -- it is definitely concerned about its strategic posture and global stability, and the detrimental consequences of giving Russia perceived "pass" to use nukes in any offensive context. And would basically have to make some kind of genuinely serious response. Which some people close to the administration have quietly hinted could be a conventional military response.
I'm not sure how that "conventional violent response" would work.
Russian military doctrine includes nuclear first strike when there's an "existential threat" to Russia, even if that threat is from conventional military attack. If Russia can use nukes against Ukrainian army entering the Russian territory, then for sure it would use them against NATO troops doing the same.
Also, in such a dire situation, Putin and other Russian leaders are crazy enough to use not just tactical nukes but to start full scale nuclear war without any hope of winning, just to "go with a bang".
I'm not sure how that "conventional violent response" would work.
One can imagine scenarios of varying effectiveness, but this a separate matter. The point is -- the Biden administration has made it clear to the Russians that there would be a significant response, with strong hints that it would be military in nature and not limited to extra sanctions.
If Russia can use nukes against Ukrainian army entering the Russian territory, then for sure it would use them against NATO troops doing the same.
The response doesn't need to involve NATO troops in Ukraine.
Meanwhile it'd be kind of hard to use nukes against stealth bombers, cruise missiles, drones and SF operations.
I actually think war driving progress is a strong argument. Not to use any obvious examples (e.g. internet), I would argue war has a profound effect on the psyche of nations (whether they lose or win).
A few examples:
- Germany rose to power in the 1800s, with a culmination at Sedan in 1870, driven by the humiliation Napoleon inflected on 60 years earlier. In 1870, Germany was a behemoth of technology (especially chemistry) & industry
- France won WW1 with such heavy losses that its people said “never again” (they called WW1 the “Great War” or the “last war”). War left an indelible mark (one wished it had left the same mark on the German).
Many such examples. Countries compete and war is a great impetus to modernize the Nation.
> men drive progress and war drives progress, and both of those things are debatable
I'm fairly confident that the progress mentioned in the article is meant as technological and maybe social progress. How would either of those happen without being driven by humans, or another hypothetical technological species?
In terms of war, I don't see how it's debatable. It may not be the only driver but it's definitely a strong one. It may not be progress towards something you (or I) desire but it's progress nonetheless.
