For me too much deep introspection does lead to depression. I am fully capable of diving into my navel, and it turns out to be a deep dark pit. Doing anything productive, or even just fun, is a cure for me. I often read the news, feel miserable about the state of the world, and then go outside and do yardwork, get my body in motion, and very soon feel much better about the world and my place in it. For me introspection isn't bad in itself, but binging on it is, as with food.
Introspection is not doomscrolling though. Being tugged around by short-lived stimuli from a feed is the opposite of deep self-reflection.
In order to go from reading the news to going outside and doing yardwork, you need to have a thought along the lines of "this doesn't feel good - I should do something else". That is introspection.
I think this conclusion in itself is more introspection than reading the news. After all most news events are external and whether you read about them or not doesn't make any difference. Its really more the opposite of introspection.
> But guides and hotel staff ... tell them they are at risk of dying, that only immediate evacuation will save them.
I got Acute Mountain Sickness at just 11k feet. Headache, nausea, dizziness, fatigue. I passed out until hitting the ground woke me up. I was very disoriented and vulnerable. If someone had told me that I had to get to a hospital or I'd die they could have led me like a tame goat. And they could be right. If you have high-altitude cerebral or pulmonary edema it is life threatening.
A guide getting a kickback can make it a lot more likely just by cutting short the boring acclimatization time.
Ya that was a very serious situation for you. I knew when my dad was barely able to stand but insisted we hike the 1000ft back up to then get back down it was also serious. But when we got home I read how deadly altitude sickness is.
This referendum is based on the idea that all corporate power is granted by the state, and thus the state can withdraw it. But in Citizens United Kennedy held that government can't regulate speech by identity, not just individual or corporate, but by any form of organization. A state cannot evade that decision by revising the form.
It was already considered unconstitutional to legislate based on the content of speech. Citizens United added the identity of the speaker.
the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual” -- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
i dont imagine any of the cases have ruled that the government can not legislate against child porn, so there's always going to be some amount of both speaker and content speech limits.
they could also just ignore any scotus rulings they dont like, and assert states rights over the topic
Speech rights have never been considered absolute. At most they require strict scrutiny for a government interest to be overcome. Obscenity is in the category that gets the least deference. Political speech gets the most, as "the highest wrung". If all speech got the same deference as the least scrutinized (e.g. child porn) then 1A would be neutered.
I mean the real mindfuck is how we ended up with money == speech. Like, I think if the founders meant that they would have said that, no? Money existed back then. English wasn’t that different back then.
I can see applying some interpretation to get at more abstract principles when conditions change, but in this case where are the changed conditions?
Do we have freedom of press if congress can prevent us from buying a printing press (or spending money to make a movie about a politician as in Citizens United)? If so 1A becomes a weak constraint on government.
Interesting, I'm going to have to look into that case more, I realize that I have a surface level take informed by mass media here
Clearly campaign material influences voters in a way that is manipulative, and some citizens having more ability than others to manipulate voters is functionally against basic democratic principles, and the current legal setup enables this to happen in a way that obviously (to me) affects election outcomes.
But I don't currently have a clear line to draw in this area, I'll have to think about it more.
I think I'd feel the same way about race- or gender-attestation: none of your business. Let's not build the infrastructure into the operating system to selectively restrict civil rights by demographic.
Doesn't make sense to invoke civil rights and pretend there are no legislative limits. If a law is passed requiring age verification and the component can't attest, then its blocked. You must attest your age to vote for example.
Not every device needs to be a secure voting machine. Civil resistance is an appropriate response to such an effort. The author prefers proactive cooperation.
I am very not brave but I'd volunteer. The trip is far more awesome than anything I have planned for the rest of my life. And if the shield fails on reentry it would only hurt for a few seconds. So if the crew and the backups and their backups read this and have second thoughts, ping me.
Historically, around 60% of all astronauts were from the military which is a high-risk occupation.
In the 50s, there was something like a handful of test pilots dying every single month. A subset of the ones who survived became the first astronauts. My understanding is that there are still a significant number of astronauts who were test pilots first.
If you don't have massive risk tolerance, you don't sign up for a moon mission.
Each and every one of them is fully aware that it’s a massive risk and has made their peace with that. You’re getting strapped to a giant rocket. It’s inherently dangerous
...no? It's the same as when you say you'd 'die for somebody'. I don't want to die, but if I had to die to save my family I would. That's not being suicidal. Similarly, if space is important enough to you to take this risk (which realistically is a pretty low risk!) I wouldn't call that suicidal either. I take the risk of death driving in my car every day; that's the nature of life.
That’s definitely not my point, what I meant was it’s not unreasonable for someone who’s older - maybe children have grown, at our nearing retirement, etc. - why not take a risk to fly to space?
HN generally skews towards the life-affirming/death-fearing quadrant so I don't think many will relate to you here. It still seems safer than being in an active warzone which hundreds of millions of people somehow manage to tolerate.
You would probably not IRL and if you would anyway it would just mean you're not qualified for the flight. Nasa needs smart people who wants to live and succeed their mission, not people who are ok to die because muh space exploration
But that was exactly the point I was responding to, no? If NASA was fine with skipping the astronauts, then they would just send it unmanned, not find a random volunteer.
especially not one that may chicken out ( "very not brave" ) and destroy the cabin from the inside out by any means necessary (bashing at walls, pissing in cracks, etc.)
No, because gunpowder has no loyalty, no terms of service, no American CEO who can be forced to testify before Congress and say interesting things about European defense customers or provide lists of who has a tattoo or not.
Half of the comments in this thread are expressing how they're very against the idea of something like Palantir "but European". It seems like some Europeans really believe that handicapping themselves is a good idea.
perhaps, but civil law is a negotiated contract including rights of all involved. If a tech conglomerate invents new applications, are they now exempt from civil law?
The era of the Nation State began when courts did have real means to enforce against powerful rogues. The suggestion that simply applying a new weaponized technology overrides the legal context is regressive.
Grok has similar levels of sycophancy to the others imho. I have several times followed it down rabbit holes of agreeableness. It does have an argumentative mode, but that just turns it into an asshole without any additional thoughfulness.
Yeah this makes sense (presuming you're talking about private chat). Most of what I've seen from Grok is its comments in a public forum, which are less targetted toward a single individual & therefore, I presume, less likely to be agreeable given the perspectives being expressed are diverse.
Preemtive betrayal is a terrible strategy if there are more than two parties in the game, and they are allowed to cooperate.
You have to be one heck of a smooth conversationalist to convince them to take a number and patiently wait in line to be the ones to be attacked next.
If you're the guy that the others in the room know shoots first, you're also the guy the others in the room will shoot when he's reaching for something in his jacket pocket.
The prisoner's dilemma leads to mutual defection as the dominant equilibrium strategy in the one-shot version. Cooperation emerges as the equilibrium on repetition. The Han Solo gunfight is literally the one-shot version. When countries go to war that calculation is more complicated.
If you haven't, I'm going to recommend you to listen to an episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, specifically The Destroyer of Worlds [1].
Why? Because it goes into the change in strategic thinking brought on by the atomic age (and, soon thereafter, the thermonuclear age). And there was an element of US strategic thinking that argued for a preemptive strike against the USSR.
The episode also goes into the arguments for and against the development of the hydrogen bomb, a weapon that could never really be used and arguably not even necessary when we already had the atomic bomb.
The outcome of those debates shaped American foreign policy from 1945 to the present day.
With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when. If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock? -- John von Neumann, ~1950
On the one hand he was one of the smartest people in history. On the other, his home country had recently been conquered by the Red Army so he may have been a little biased.
Decoys are greatly over-rated in ballistic missile systems. Sensors are so good at discriminating decoys from warheads that decoys are largely ineffective and have been for decades. This has borne out in Ukraine.
A decoy sufficiently sophisticated to look real to good sensors will have weight and characteristics that approach that of a real warhead, at which point you might as well add another warhead. Decoys only make sense if the marginal cost of adding them is low.
How are decoys discriminated? The acceleration due to gravity is the same for all. Radar reflectance could be manipulated. Drag and lift perhaps, but can't those be matched with the real thing ? What is it that gives up a decoy as a decoy ?
Yes I can distinguish a falling feather from a falling lead-shot. The more interesting questions is can one not make a featherweight that falls like lead-shot, reflects like lead-shot and be cheaper than lead-shot.
For a warhead decoy ten times lighter it needs to present an area ten times smaller to maintain drag induced deceleration parity. For radio parity the decoy needs to reflect more the actual warhead reflect less. Metal coated kevlar ribbons on the decoy might do it.
What I find interesting is that the curse of rocket equation makes decoys pretty expensive to propel. So if I am forced to incur that cost anyway, might as well put a real warhead on that.
The terminal guidance systems use broad-spectrum imagers to identify warheads and select their point of impact. Radar is only used to point them in the general direction.
Against this type of terminal guidance, a decoy must have the same shape, size, orientation, and spectral signature of a warhead, and maintain these properties while being ablated. As a matter of engineering, a decoy with these properties will necessarily have mass and volume costs that approach that of a warhead, with none of the benefits of a warhead.
From a weapon design perspective, effective decoys significantly reduce the range of the missiles they are attached to. That is not a tradeoff any weapon designers are willing to make because range is one of the most critical attributes of an effective weapon.
Even if the problem of an effective decoy ballistic warhead could be solved, it will a still quite costly to get it "there" at "that" speed. Might as well fill it with high explosives.
A thought experiment: would the world be a better place if the US had preemptively attacked the USSR in the 50s or early 60s when it was possible to do without more than “get[ting] our hair mussed” as General Turgidson put it?
Sadly, the Trump Administration concluded we should build exactly the defense capabilities described in the film.
They even cited it by name as a good roadmap for the Golden Dome, so I know they read the title. I guess their reading comprehension levels are extremely low.
You don't think he was aware of the potential to leverage Twitter to elect a friendly president and alleviate his severe regulatory challenges? That part was just a happy accident?
Are we forgetting the part where he bought twitter because of a joke, got sued over it for manipulating twitter's stock price, tried to buy his way out by buying twitter, realized it would cost too much money and tried to back out, got sued again and finally was more or less forced to follow through on the purchase?
Are these the actions of a man following a well thought out plan to elect a president?
We all know why he did it: because people wrote on and listened to twitter a lot, and he didn't like what they said. He wanted to control the conversation that was unfavourable to him.
> He wanted to control the conversation that was unfavourable to him.
Same thing Thiel is doing for political control: attempting to inherit the religious right from MAGA -perhaps on behalf of hos protegé. Thiel's plans will likely outlive the movement's leader and/or go beyond 2028, it's a race against time to establish his bona fides while the sun shines
